Literature DB >> 10665204

Older observers' tolerance of optical blur: age differences in the identification of defocused text signs.

D W Kline1, K Buck, Y Sell, T L Bolan, R E Dewar.   

Abstract

To determine if visual aging affects the ability to identify blurred text signs in daytime or nighttime viewing conditions, the photopic and mesopic legibility thresholds of young and old adult observers were compared at three levels of optically induced acuity (Experiment 1). For both age groups, legibility was reduced by nighttime luminance and degraded acuity. Surprisingly, older observers were better than younger ones in identifying defocused (optically blurred) text in both daytime and nighttime conditions. In Experiment 2, older observers were also superior to younger ones in identifying defocused standard and spatially matched novel text signs. These findings indicate that older observers' tolerance of optical blur is a generic ability, rather than one explained by familiarity with the low-pass optical profile of specific signs. Consistent with the notion that factors beyond acuity contribute more importantly to text legibility for older than for younger observers, acuity was a stronger predictor of legibility thresholds in the younger group. Actual or potential applications of this research include the need to consider functional acuity in visual screening protocols and the design of text displays, as well as the utilization of compensatory letter-recognition training for older observers or others with diminished acuity.

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10665204     DOI: 10.1518/001872099779611049

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hum Factors        ISSN: 0018-7208            Impact factor:   2.888


  7 in total

1.  A relationship between tolerance of blur and personality.

Authors:  Russell L Woods; C Randall Colvin; Fuensanta A Vera-Diaz; Eli Peli
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2010-05-26       Impact factor: 4.799

Review 2.  Attention, psychomotor functions and age.

Authors:  Konrad Wolfgang Kallus; Jeroen A J Schmitt; David Benton
Journal:  Eur J Nutr       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 5.614

3.  Factors Influencing Pseudo-Accommodation-The Difference between Subjectively Reported Range of Clear Focus and Objectively Measured Accommodation Range.

Authors:  Sandeep K Dhallu; Amy L Sheppard; Tom Drew; Toshifumi Mihashi; Juan F Zapata-Díaz; Hema Radhakrishnan; D Robert Iskander; James S Wolffsohn
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-28

4.  Refractive and visual function changes in twilight conditions.

Authors:  Tatsuya Iizuka; Takushi Kawamorita; Tomoya Handa; Hitoshi Ishikawa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Effect of defocus on response time in different age groups: A pilot study.

Authors:  Balamurali Vasudevan; Kaiser Sultani; Christopher Cossette; Brandon Burr
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2015-12-31

6.  Age-related differences in the legibility of degraded text.

Authors:  Benjamin Wolfe; Jonathan Dobres; Anna Kosovicheva; Ruth Rosenholtz; Bryan Reimer
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2016-12-12

Review 7.  Effects of Normative Aging on Eye Movements during Reading.

Authors:  Kevin B Paterson; Victoria A McGowan; Kayleigh L Warrington; Lin Li; Sha Li; Fang Xie; Min Chang; Sainan Zhao; Ascensión Pagán; Sarah J White; Jingxin Wang
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2020-01-14
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.