OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate differences in foveal contrast sensitivity (CS) between glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous eyes using a simple, rapid computerized test. METHODS: This study included consecutive patients with glaucoma (35 eyes) and age-matched control participants (23 eyes) with visual acuity of 20/30 or better. Patients with any other ocular disease, including cataract, were excluded. All participants underwent a comprehensive ocular examination, perimetry, and CS. Contrast sensitivity was examined by means of 2 computerized psychophysical tests. The transient method included the presentation of a target in a temporal, 2-alternative, forced-choice procedure, and the static method involved 4 forced-choice procedures. The targets were Gabor patches with spatial frequencies of 1.5 to 9.0 cycles per degree. The tests were conducted under photopic and mesopic conditions. RESULTS: Significantly lower foveal CS was found in glaucomatous eyes under photopic and mesopic conditions for all spatial frequencies (P < .01). The transient and static methods yielded similar results and were significantly correlated (P < .001). All transient photopic and mesopic CSs were significantly correlated with cup to disc ratio (P < .05). The static photopic spatial frequency of 6 cycles per degree was significantly correlated with the severity of the glaucomatous damage. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that foveal CS is impaired in glaucoma despite good visual acuity, suggesting that central visual function damage occurs in glaucoma. The similarity between the 2 methods of testing implies that the static method, being the shorter and easier one, may be used in future research. Further research is necessary to establish a CS testing role in the screening and monitoring of glaucoma.
OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate differences in foveal contrast sensitivity (CS) between glaucomatous and nonglaucomatous eyes using a simple, rapid computerized test. METHODS: This study included consecutive patients with glaucoma (35 eyes) and age-matched control participants (23 eyes) with visual acuity of 20/30 or better. Patients with any other ocular disease, including cataract, were excluded. All participants underwent a comprehensive ocular examination, perimetry, and CS. Contrast sensitivity was examined by means of 2 computerized psychophysical tests. The transient method included the presentation of a target in a temporal, 2-alternative, forced-choice procedure, and the static method involved 4 forced-choice procedures. The targets were Gabor patches with spatial frequencies of 1.5 to 9.0 cycles per degree. The tests were conducted under photopic and mesopic conditions. RESULTS: Significantly lower foveal CS was found in glaucomatous eyes under photopic and mesopic conditions for all spatial frequencies (P < .01). The transient and static methods yielded similar results and were significantly correlated (P < .001). All transient photopic and mesopic CSs were significantly correlated with cup to disc ratio (P < .05). The static photopic spatial frequency of 6 cycles per degree was significantly correlated with the severity of the glaucomatous damage. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that foveal CS is impaired in glaucoma despite good visual acuity, suggesting that central visual function damage occurs in glaucoma. The similarity between the 2 methods of testing implies that the static method, being the shorter and easier one, may be used in future research. Further research is necessary to establish a CS testing role in the screening and monitoring of glaucoma.
Authors: Anna A Ledolter; Matthias Monhart; Andreas Schoetzau; Margarita G Todorova; Anja M Palmowski-Wolfe Journal: Doc Ophthalmol Date: 2015-01-24 Impact factor: 2.379
Authors: Nima Fatehi; Sara Nowroozizadeh; Sharon Henry; Anne L Coleman; Joseph Caprioli; Kouros Nouri-Mahdavi Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-03-23 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Ravid Doron; Anna Sterkin; Moshe Fried; Oren Yehezkel; Maria Lev; Michael Belkin; Mordechai Rosner; Arieh S Solomon; Yossi Mandel; Uri Polat Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-23 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jamie Enoch; Lee Jones; Deanna J Taylor; Carol Bronze; James F Kirwan; Pete R Jones; David P Crabb Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2019-12-10 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Aline F Cretenoud; Arthur Barakat; Alain Milliet; Oh-Hyeon Choung; Marco Bertamini; Christophe Constantin; Michael H Herzog Journal: J Vis Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 2.240
Authors: Johann Klein; Barbara K Pierscionek; Jan Lauritzen; Karin Derntl; Andrzej Grzybowski; Margarita B Zlatkova Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rachel L Z Goh; Yu Xiang George Kong; Colm McAlinden; John Liu; Jonathan G Crowston; Simon E Skalicky Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-01-23 Impact factor: 3.283