David A Atchison1, Huanqing Guo. 1. School of Optometry, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia. d.atchison@qut.edu.au
Abstract
PURPOSE: We compared subjective blur limits for defocus and the higher-order aberrations of coma, trefoil, and spherical aberration. METHODS: Spherical aberration was presented in both Zernike and Seidel forms. Black letter targets (0.1, 0.35, and 0.6 logMAR) on white backgrounds were blurred using an adaptive optics system for six subjects under cycloplegia with 5 mm artificial pupils. Three blur criteria of just noticeable, just troublesome, and just objectionable were used. RESULTS: When expressed as wave aberration coefficients, the just noticeable blur limits for coma and trefoil were similar to those for defocus, whereas the just noticeable limits for Zernike spherical aberration and Seidel spherical aberration (the latter given as an "rms equivalent") were considerably smaller and larger, respectively, than defocus limits. CONCLUSIONS: Blur limits increased more quickly for the higher order aberrations than for defocus as the criterion changed from just noticeable to just troublesome and then to just objectionable.
PURPOSE: We compared subjective blur limits for defocus and the higher-order aberrations of coma, trefoil, and spherical aberration. METHODS: Spherical aberration was presented in both Zernike and Seidel forms. Black letter targets (0.1, 0.35, and 0.6 logMAR) on white backgrounds were blurred using an adaptive optics system for six subjects under cycloplegia with 5 mm artificial pupils. Three blur criteria of just noticeable, just troublesome, and just objectionable were used. RESULTS: When expressed as wave aberration coefficients, the just noticeable blur limits for coma and trefoil were similar to those for defocus, whereas the just noticeable limits for Zernike spherical aberration and Seidel spherical aberration (the latter given as an "rms equivalent") were considerably smaller and larger, respectively, than defocus limits. CONCLUSIONS: Blur limits increased more quickly for the higher order aberrations than for defocus as the criterion changed from just noticeable to just troublesome and then to just objectionable.
Authors: William S Tuten; Robert F Cooper; Pavan Tiruveedhula; Alfredo Dubra; Austin Roorda; Nicolas P Cottaris; David H Brainard; Jessica I W Morgan Journal: J Vis Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: Susana Marcos; John S Werner; Stephen A Burns; William H Merigan; Pablo Artal; David A Atchison; Karen M Hampson; Richard Legras; Linda Lundstrom; Geungyoung Yoon; Joseph Carroll; Stacey S Choi; Nathan Doble; Adam M Dubis; Alfredo Dubra; Ann Elsner; Ravi Jonnal; Donald T Miller; Michel Paques; Hannah E Smithson; Laura K Young; Yuhua Zhang; Melanie Campbell; Jennifer Hunter; Andrew Metha; Grazyna Palczewska; Jesse Schallek; Lawrence C Sincich Journal: Vision Res Date: 2017-02-27 Impact factor: 1.886