Literature DB >> 21158882

Vanishing Optotype acuity: repeatability and effect of the number of alternatives.

Nilpa Shah1, Steven C Dakin, Tony Redmond, Roger S Anderson.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Vanishing Optotype letters have a pseudo high-pass design so that the mean luminance of the target is the same as the background and the letters thus 'vanish' soon after the resolution threshold is reached. We wished to determine the variability of acuity measurements using these letters compared to conventional letters, and in particular how acuity is affected by the number of alternatives available to the subject.
METHODS: Acuity was measured using high contrast letters of both conventional and Vanishing Optotype design for three experienced normal subjects. Thresholds were determined for central vision in a forced choice paradigm for two alternatives (2AFC; AU and OQ), 4AFC (AQUO), 6AFC (QUANGO) and 26AFC (whole alphabet) using a QUEST procedure. Three measurements were made for each condition.
RESULTS: Threshold letter size was always larger for the Vanishing Optotypes than conventional letters, although the size of this difference (0.11-0.34 logMAR) depended on the number of alternatives and what they were. The effect of the number of AFC, and the individual letters employed, was smaller for the Vanishing Optotypes, implying that they are more equally legible than conventional optotypes. Variability was also lower for the Vanishing Optotype sets (0.01-0.03 logMAR) than the conventional letter sets (0.03-0.06).
CONCLUSIONS: The smaller effect of the number of letter alternatives, combined with more equal discriminability and lower threshold variability, implies that Vanishing Optotypes may be appropriate targets from which to design letter charts to measure small clinical changes in acuity.
© 2010 The College of Optometrists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21158882     DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00806.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt        ISSN: 0275-5408            Impact factor:   3.117


  9 in total

1.  Resolution acuity versus recognition acuity with Landolt-style optotypes.

Authors:  Sven P Heinrich; Michael Bach
Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol       Date:  2013-07-05       Impact factor: 3.117

Review 2.  [Development and validation of novel clinical endpoints in intermediate age-related macular degeneration in MACUSTAR].

Authors:  Jan H Terheyden; Robert P Finger; Steffen Schmitz-Valckenberg; Hansjürgen Agostini; Claudia Dahlke; Laura Kuehlewein; Gabriele E Lang; Daniel Pauleikhoff; Armin Wolf; Michael K Boettger; Ulrich F O Luhmann; Friedrich Asmus; Frank G Holz
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  2019-12       Impact factor: 1.059

3.  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

4.  Metamorphopsia and letter recognition.

Authors:  Emily Wiecek; Steven C Dakin; Peter Bex
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-12-01       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Validation of printed and computerised crowded Kay picture logMAR tests against gold standard ETDRS acuity test chart measurements in adult and amblyopic paediatric subjects.

Authors:  N Shah; D A H Laidlaw; S Rashid; P Hysi
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 3.775

6.  Impact of Children's Postural Variation on Viewing Distance and Estimated Visual Acuity.

Authors:  Lisa M Hamm; Kishan Mistry; Joanna M Black; Cameron C Grant; Steven C Dakin
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-01-30       Impact factor: 3.283

7.  Evaluation of vision screening of 5-15-year-old children in three Tongan schools: comparison of The Auckland Optotypes and Lea symbols.

Authors:  Lisa M Hamm; Fiona Langridge; Joanna M Black; Nicola S Anstice; Mele Vuki; Toakase Fakakovikaetau; Cameron C Grant; Steven C Dakin
Journal:  Clin Exp Optom       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 2.742

8.  Unresolvable Pixels Contribute to Character Legibility: Another Reason Why High-Resolution Images Appear Clearer.

Authors:  Madoka Ohnishi; Koichi Oda
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2020-12-26

9.  The Effect of Induced Intraocular Stray Light on Recognition Thresholds for Pseudo-High-Pass Filtered Letters.

Authors:  Nilpa Shah; Steven C Dakin; Pádraig J Mulholland; Kalina Racheva; Juliane Matlach; Roger S Anderson
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-05-02       Impact factor: 3.048

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.