Literature DB >> 17166891

Clinical assessment of two new contrast sensitivity charts.

Kavitha Thayaparan1, Michael D Crossland, Gary S Rubin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Contrast sensitivity measurement in UK clinical practice is most commonly performed with the Pelli-Robson chart. AIMS: To compare the repeatability of two new contrast sensitivity charts and to measure their agreement with the Pelli-Robson charts.
METHOD: Contrast sensitivity was measured monocularly using two versions of the Mars letter contrast sensitivity chart, two presentations on the Test Chart 2000 and two versions of the Pelli-Robson chart. Bland-Altman techniques were used to assess repeatability and agreement.
RESULTS: 53 subjects were recruited with visual acuity from 6/4 to 6/72. The coefficient of repeatability was 0.182 for the Pelli-Robson chart, 0.121 for the Mars chart and 0.238 for Test Chart 2000. Limits of agreement with the Pelli-Robson chart were -0.29 to +0.15 log units for the Mars letter contrast sensitivity chart and -0.32 to +0.78 log units for the Test Chart 2000. For patients with poor contrast sensitivity, the limits of agreement between the Test Chart 2000 and the Pelli-Robson chart improved from -0.33 to +0.15 log units.
CONCLUSION: In a population of hospital ophthalmology patients, the coefficient of repeatability is better for the Mars chart and worse for the Test Chart 2000 when compared with the Pelli-Robson chart. The electronic test chart does not agree well with the Pelli-Robson chart, although this might simply be due to the performance of liquid crystal display screens at low contrast levels. The Mars letter contrast sensitivity chart shows good validity and reasonable agreement with the Pelli-Robson chart.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17166891      PMCID: PMC1955579          DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2006.109280

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0007-1161            Impact factor:   4.638


  22 in total

1.  How do visual status and age impact on driving performance as measured on a closed circuit driving track?

Authors:  J M Wood
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Repeatability and intercorrelations of standard vision tests as a function of age.

Authors:  J E Lovie-Kitchin; B Brown
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 1.973

3.  Calibrated LCD/TFT stimulus presentation for visual psychophysics in fMRI.

Authors:  H Strasburger; T Wüstenberg; L Jäncke
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  2002-11-15       Impact factor: 2.390

4.  Simple clinical techniques to evaluate visual function in patients with early cataract.

Authors:  D B Elliott; M A Hurst
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 1.973

5.  Psychophysics of reading. VI--The role of contrast in low vision.

Authors:  G S Rubin; G E Legge
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 6.  Visual requirements for reading.

Authors:  S G Whittaker; J Lovie-Kitchin
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 1.973

7.  Performance-based and self-assessed measures of visual function as related to history of falls, hip fractures, and measured gait time. The Beaver Dam Eye Study.

Authors:  B E Klein; R Klein; K E Lee; K J Cruickshanks
Journal:  Ophthalmology       Date:  1998-01       Impact factor: 12.079

8.  How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? The SEE Project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation.

Authors:  Sheila K West; Gary S Rubin; Aimee T Broman; Beatriz Muñoz; Karen Bandeen-Roche; Kathleen Turano
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  2002-06

9.  Contrast sensitivity and other vision tests in the optic neuritis treatment trial.

Authors:  J D Trobe; R W Beck; P S Moke; P A Cleary
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 5.258

10.  Age and visual impairment decrease driving performance as measured on a closed-road circuit.

Authors:  Joanne M Wood
Journal:  Hum Factors       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 2.888

View more
  19 in total

1.  How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli-Robson test?

Authors:  Fabrizio Zeri; Paolo Calcatelli; Eleonora Funaro; Marialuisa Martelli; Shehzad A Naroo
Journal:  Int Ophthalmol       Date:  2017-06-21       Impact factor: 2.031

2.  Grating acuity and contrast tests for clinical trials of severe vision loss.

Authors:  Ava K Bittner; Pamela Jeter; Gislin Dagnelie
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.973

3.  The artificial silicon retina in retinitis pigmentosa patients (an American Ophthalmological Association thesis).

Authors:  Alan Y Chow; Ava K Bittner; Machelle T Pardue
Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc       Date:  2010-12

4.  Active Learning of Contrast Sensitivity to Assess Visual Function in Macula-off Retinal Detachment.

Authors:  Merina Thomas; Rebecca F Silverman; Filippos Vingopoulos; Megan Kasetty; Gina Yu; Esther L Kim; Amro A Omari; Katherine A Joltikov; Eun Y Choi; Leo A Kim; David N Zacks; John B Miller
Journal:  J Vitreoretin Dis       Date:  2020-11-05

5.  Function in the human connectome: task-fMRI and individual differences in behavior.

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

6.  Psychophysical contrast calibration.

Authors:  Long To; Russell L Woods; Robert B Goldstein; Eli Peli
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-04-30       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Neuroanatomical substrates underlying contrast sensitivity.

Authors:  Ying Yang; Yajun Wang; Cun Zhang; Jiajia Zhu; Yongqiang Yu
Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg       Date:  2019-03

8.  Evaluation of contrast sensitivity measurements after retrobulbar optic neuritis in Multiple Sclerosis.

Authors:  Marta Owidzka; Michal Wilczynski; Wojciech Omulecki
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-02-28       Impact factor: 3.117

9.  Measuring Visual Function Using the MultiQuity System: Comparison with an Established Device.

Authors:  Patrycja Smolarek-Kasprzak; John M Nolan; Stephen Beatty; Jessica Dennison; Kwadwo Owusu Akuffo; Robert Kuchling; Jim Stack; Graham O'Regan
Journal:  J Ophthalmol       Date:  2014-12-16       Impact factor: 1.909

10.  History of falling and visual ability among independently living elderly in Sweden.

Authors:  Jeanette Källstrand-Eriksson; Cathrine Hildingh; Boel Bengtsson
Journal:  Clin Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-07-11
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.