Date of Award


Degree Type


Degree Name

Master of Science in Vision Science

Committee Chair

Thomas Griffith


Background: Many investigators have studied the association between learning, reading and eye movement patterns with handedness and eye dominance. Theories and speculations have resulted from these numerous studies. Although many studies have investigated these relationships, we were unable to locate any studies associating the Visagraph II reading efficiency data to handedness and/or eyedness. The Visagraph II, an objective computerized method of testing eye movement patterns, requires minimal subjective assessment of the subject's performance. The goal of our study is to investigate two subtle factors, eyedness and handedness, as they relate to eye movement patterns and to examine these factors in a relatively homogeneous group of subjects (43 third-year Optometry student).

Methods: Forty-three third year optometry students served as subjects. The subjects completed a handedness and preferred eye survey, in which they indicated hand or eye preference while performing or simulating the tasks asked. The subjects then read two standard Adult level Taylor paragraphs (Level 10) while the Visagraph II assessed their eye movement patterns.

Results: ANOVA for the three "preferred near eye when reading" groups find significant effects in the Visagraph II relative reading efficiency score and reading comprehension questions correct between the mixed eye group and the left and right eye groups. An ANOVA also shows significant effects in the Visagraph II reading comprehension questions correct between the strong and non-strong right handed (RH) groups. The preferred far and near eye are moderately correlated. There is also a low but significant correlation between handedness and the preferred far and near eye.

Conclusions: The subjects in the mixed preferred near eye group read more efficiently and comprehended more of the material that they read when compared to the right and left preferred near eye group. Although the subjects in the non-strong RH groups were not more efficient readers, our study shows that the subjects in the non-strong RH group performed better on the reading comprehension questions than the strong RH group. Findings in our study are consistent with findings found in certain past studies.

Included in

Optometry Commons