Literature DB >> 1891193

Effects of spherical and astigmatic defocus on acuity and contrast sensitivity: a comparison of three clinical charts.

A Bradley1, T Thomas, M Kalaher, M Hoerres.   

Abstract

Two contrast sensitivity charts (Vistech and Pelli-Robson) have become available to the eye care practitioner. Their value as clinical tools for the assessment of visual function may be enhanced because of either an insensitivity to the effects of optical focus or a hypersensitivity to defocus. We compared the sensitivity to defocus of these charts to the traditional Snellen chart by examining the effect of up to +/- 5.00 D of spherical and astigmatic defocus on performance with each chart. In order to simulate the two types of clinical examination scenarios, tests were performed both with and without mydriatic/cycloplegic agents. The Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity chart was very resistant to the effects of all types of optical defocus. As predicted, the high spatial frequencies on the Vistech chart were sensitive to defocus. However, although contrast sensitivities for the low frequencies were affected less, optical defocus produced significant decreases in low frequency Vistech contrast sensitivity. In addition, the Vistech chart was very insensitive to axis 180 blurring lenses. There was no indication that either contrast sensitivity chart was more sensitive to defocus than the standard Snellen chart.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1891193     DOI: 10.1097/00006324-199106000-00003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Optom Vis Sci        ISSN: 1040-5488            Impact factor:   1.973


  9 in total

1.  Change in visual acuity is well correlated with change in image-quality metrics for both normal and keratoconic wavefront errors.

Authors:  Ayeswarya Ravikumar; Jason D Marsack; Harold E Bedell; Yue Shi; Raymond A Applegate
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-11-26       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Visual impact of Zernike and Seidel forms of monochromatic aberrations.

Authors:  Xu Cheng; Arthur Bradley; Sowmya Ravikumar; Larry N Thibos
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.973

3.  Meeting the UK driving vision standards with reduced contrast sensitivity.

Authors:  S Rae; K Latham; M F Katsou
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2015-10-16       Impact factor: 3.775

4.  Visual function assessment in simulated real-life situations in patients with age-related macular degeneration compared to normal subjects.

Authors:  G Barteselli; M L Gomez; A L Doede; J Chhablani; W Gutstein; D-U Bartsch; L Dustin; S P Azen; W R Freeman
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2014-08-01       Impact factor: 3.775

5.  Influence of different types of astigmatism on visual acuity.

Authors:  Laura Remón; Juan A Monsoriu; Walter D Furlan
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2016-09-14

6.  The effect of astigmatic axis on visual acuity measured with different alphabets in Roman alphabet readers.

Authors:  Pedro M Serra; Michael J Cox; Catharine M Chisholm
Journal:  Clin Optom (Auckl)       Date:  2018-08-06

7.  Automatic compensation enhances the orientation perception in chronic astigmatism.

Authors:  Sangkyu Son; Won Mok Shim; Hyungoo Kang; Joonyeol Lee
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Induced astigmatism biases the orientation information represented in multivariate electroencephalogram activities.

Authors:  Sangkyu Son; Joonsik Moon; Hyungoo Kang; Yee-Joon Kim; Joonyeol Lee
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2021-06-01       Impact factor: 5.038

9.  Effects of astigmatic defocus on binocular contrast sensitivity.

Authors:  Yumi Hasegawa; Takahiro Hiraoka; Shinichiro Nakano; Fumiki Okamoto; Tetsuro Oshika
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.