PURPOSE: The Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test (initially known as the Lighthouse Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test) is similar in design to the Pelli-Robson Test but may offer several advantages. This study evaluates the repeatability of the Mars test and its agreement with the Pelli-Robson test in normal and low-vision subjects. METHODS: Fifty-four subjects were tested (age 22-86 years), including 20 normally sighted young adults, 17 normally sighted older adults, and 17 adults with low vision (20/16 to 20/250). Subjects were tested with both contrast sensitivity tests and with the ETDRS visual acuity chart. After a short break, subjects were retested with an alternate form of each contrast sensitivity test. The chart forms used (two Pelli-Robson and three Mars) and the order of testing were varied systematically. Testing was monocular with habitual correction and, for subjects over 40 years of age, included appropriate near add. Letter-by-letter scoring was used for both tests. Repeatability and agreement were assessed by determining the 95% limits of agreement (LoA): +/- 1.96 standard deviations of the differences between administrations or tests. RESULTS: The Mars test showed excellent agreement with the Pelli-Robson test, with 95% LoA of +/- 0.21 log units for all subjects. The Mars test was similarly repeatable (95% LoA = +/-0.20 log units) to the Pelli-Robson test (95% LoA = +/-0.20 log units) among all subjects. CONCLUSION: The new Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test shows excellent agreement with the Pelli-Robson test and has similar repeatability. There are subtle differences in the actual contrast levels on different forms of the Mars test, and adjusting for these differences leads to superior repeatability of the Mars test. Thus, the Mars test may be a useful alternative to the Pelli-Robson test offering several advantages, including smaller size, improved durability, and ease of use.
PURPOSE: The Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test (initially known as the Lighthouse Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test) is similar in design to the Pelli-Robson Test but may offer several advantages. This study evaluates the repeatability of the Mars test and its agreement with the Pelli-Robson test in normal and low-vision subjects. METHODS: Fifty-four subjects were tested (age 22-86 years), including 20 normally sighted young adults, 17 normally sighted older adults, and 17 adults with low vision (20/16 to 20/250). Subjects were tested with both contrast sensitivity tests and with the ETDRS visual acuity chart. After a short break, subjects were retested with an alternate form of each contrast sensitivity test. The chart forms used (two Pelli-Robson and three Mars) and the order of testing were varied systematically. Testing was monocular with habitual correction and, for subjects over 40 years of age, included appropriate near add. Letter-by-letter scoring was used for both tests. Repeatability and agreement were assessed by determining the 95% limits of agreement (LoA): +/- 1.96 standard deviations of the differences between administrations or tests. RESULTS: The Mars test showed excellent agreement with the Pelli-Robson test, with 95% LoA of +/- 0.21 log units for all subjects. The Mars test was similarly repeatable (95% LoA = +/-0.20 log units) to the Pelli-Robson test (95% LoA = +/-0.20 log units) among all subjects. CONCLUSION: The new Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test shows excellent agreement with the Pelli-Robson test and has similar repeatability. There are subtle differences in the actual contrast levels on different forms of the Mars test, and adjusting for these differences leads to superior repeatability of the Mars test. Thus, the Mars test may be a useful alternative to the Pelli-Robson test offering several advantages, including smaller size, improved durability, and ease of use.
Authors: Alex R Bowers; R Julius Anastasio; Sarah S Sheldon; Margaret G O'Connor; Ann M Hollis; Piers D Howe; Todd S Horowitz Journal: Accid Anal Prev Date: 2013-07-16
Authors: Angela M Brown; Delwin T Lindsey; Joanna G Cammenga; Peter J Giannone; Michael R Stenger Journal: Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci Date: 2015-01-06 Impact factor: 4.799
Authors: Deanna M Barch; Gregory C Burgess; Michael P Harms; Steven E Petersen; Bradley L Schlaggar; Maurizio Corbetta; Matthew F Glasser; Sandra Curtiss; Sachin Dixit; Cindy Feldt; Dan Nolan; Edward Bryant; Tucker Hartley; Owen Footer; James M Bjork; Russ Poldrack; Steve Smith; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Abraham Z Snyder; David C Van Essen Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-05-16 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Bettina Hohberger; Robert Laemmer; Werner Adler; Anselm G M Juenemann; Folkert K Horn Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2007-08-11 Impact factor: 3.117