Literature DB >> 23695324

Empirical variability in the calibration of slope-based eccentric photorefraction.

Shrikant R Bharadwaj1, N Geetha Sravani, Julie-Anne Little, Asa Narasaiah, Vivian Wong, Rachel Woodburn, T Rowan Candy.   

Abstract

Refraction estimates from eccentric infrared (IR) photorefraction depend critically on the calibration of luminance slopes in the pupil. While the intersubject variability of this calibration has been estimated, there is no systematic evaluation of its intrasubject variability. This study determined the within subject inter- and intra-session repeatability of this calibration factor and the optimum range of lenses needed to derive this value. Relative calibrations for the MCS PowerRefractor and a customized photorefractor were estimated twice within one session or across two sessions by placing trial lenses before one eye covered with an IR transmitting filter. The data were subsequently resampled with various lens combinations to determine the impact of lens power range on the calibration estimates. Mean (±1.96 SD) calibration slopes were 0.99±0.39 for North Americans with the MCS PowerRefractor (relative to its built-in value) and 0.65±0.25 Ls/D and 0.40±0.09 Ls/D for Indians and North Americans with the custom photorefractor, respectively. The ±95% limits of agreement of intrasubject variability ranged from ±0.39 to ±0.56 for the MCS PowerRefractor and ±0.03 Ls/D to ±0.04 Ls/D for the custom photorefractor. The mean differences within and across sessions were not significantly different from zero (p>0.38 for all). The combined intersubject and intrasubject variability of calibration is therefore about ±40% of the mean value, implying that significant errors in individual refraction/accommodation estimates may arise if a group-average calibration is used. Protocols containing both plus and minus lenses had calibration slopes closest to the gold-standard protocol, suggesting that they may provide the best estimate of the calibration factor compared to those containing either plus or minus lenses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23695324      PMCID: PMC3967915          DOI: 10.1364/JOSAA.30.000923

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis        ISSN: 1084-7529            Impact factor:   2.129


  25 in total

1.  An evaluation of the lag of accommodation using photorefraction.

Authors:  Anne Seidemann; Frank Schaeffel
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.886

2.  The variability of retinoscopic measurements when applied to large groups of children under visual screening conditions.

Authors:  M J HIRSCH
Journal:  Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom       Date:  1956-08

3.  A study of consensual accommodation.

Authors:  E A W BALL
Journal:  Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom       Date:  1952-11

4.  Application of video-based technology for the simultaneous measurement of accommodation and vergence.

Authors:  Rajaraman Suryakumar; Jason P Meyers; Elizabeth L Irving; William R Bobier
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-12-15       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 5.  Photorefraction of eyes: history and future prospects.

Authors:  Howard C Howland
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 1.973

6.  Laboratory, clinical, and kindergarten test of a new eccentric infrared photorefractor (PowerRefractor).

Authors:  M Choi; S Weiss; F Schaeffel; A Seidemann; H C Howland; B Wilhelm; H Wilhelm
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 1.973

7.  Retinoscopy and eye size.

Authors:  M Glickstein; M Millodot
Journal:  Science       Date:  1970-05-01       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Spectral reflectance of the human ocular fundus.

Authors:  F C Delori; K P Pflibsen
Journal:  Appl Opt       Date:  1989-03-15       Impact factor: 1.980

9.  Optics of photoretinoscopy: results from ray tracing.

Authors:  H C Howland
Journal:  Am J Optom Physiol Opt       Date:  1985-09

10.  Inter-individual variability in the dynamics of natural accommodation in humans: relation to age and refractive errors.

Authors:  F Schaeffel; H Wilhelm; E Zrenner
Journal:  J Physiol       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 5.182

View more
  23 in total

1.  Two-dimensional simulation of eccentric photorefraction images for ametropes: factors influencing the measurement.

Authors:  Yifei Wu; Larry N Thibos; T Rowan Candy
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 3.117

2.  Near heterophoria in early childhood.

Authors:  Erin Babinsky; Vidhyapriya Sreenivasan; T Rowan Candy
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 4.799

3.  Utilizing minicomputer technology for low-cost photorefraction: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Rajat Agarwala; Alexander Leube; Siegfried Wahl
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 3.732

4.  The heterophoria of 3-5 year old children as a function of viewing distance and target type.

Authors:  Mary E Troyer; Vidhyapriya Sreenivasan; T J Peper; T Rowan Candy
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 3.117

5.  Validation of the PowerRef 3 for Measuring Accommodation: Comparison With the Grand Seiko WAM-5500A Autorefractor.

Authors:  Alyssa M Gehring; Jennifer X Haensel; Molly K Curtiss; Tawna L Roberts
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 3.048

6.  Vergence driven accommodation with simulated disparity in myopia and emmetropia.

Authors:  Guido Maiello; Kristen L Kerber; Frank Thorn; Peter J Bex; Fuensanta A Vera-Diaz
Journal:  Exp Eye Res       Date:  2017-10-16       Impact factor: 3.467

7.  Convergence and Accommodation Development Is Preprogrammed in Premature Infants.

Authors:  Anna M Horwood; Sonia S Toor; Patricia M Riddell
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 4.799

8.  Developmental changes in the balance of disparity, blur, and looming/proximity cues to drive ocular alignment and focus.

Authors:  Anna M Horwood; Patricia M Riddell
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 1.490

9.  The magnitude of monocular light attenuation required to elicit the Pulfrich illusion.

Authors:  C Vijay Reena Durai; Siddhart Rajendran; Michael A Webster; Sandeep Vempati; Shrikant R Bharadwaj
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2021-07-05       Impact factor: 1.984

10.  A covered eye fails to follow an object moving in depth.

Authors:  Arvind Chandna; Jeremy Badler; Devashish Singh; Scott Watamaniuk; Stephen Heinen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.