Literature DB >> 23828648

Resolution acuity versus recognition acuity with Landolt-style optotypes.

Sven P Heinrich1, Michael Bach.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: International standards define acuity as the reciprocal of the threshold gap size of a Landolt C optotype. However, the literature is inconsistent as to what type of acuity is measured with Landolt Cs. The present study addresses this question more directly than previous studies by quantifying the effect of an inherent luminance artifact in Landolt-style optotypes.
METHODS: Two groups of modified optotypes were used. In the first group, each optotype had a single gap structure with the same average luminance. Between optotypes, the gap structures differed in their degree of fineness. In the second group of optotypes, a standard gap was always present, defining the orientation of the optotype. Additional gap structures of the same average luminance, but different fineness, were inserted at the remaining potential gap locations, thereby balancing luminance across potential gap locations. Visual acuity measures were obtained for each optotype variant, using a computer-based test employing a staircase procedure.
RESULTS: Similar acuity values were obtained for all optotypes of the first group, and for standard Landolt Cs, irrespective of the fineness of the gap structure. With luminance-balanced optotypes of the second group, measured acuity was halved, compared to standard optotypes.
CONCLUSIONS: The results support the view that it is recognition acuity, rather than resolution acuity, which is measured with standard Landolt-style optotypes, with the imbalanced luminance distribution serving as a cue. Luminance-balanced optotypes may help to obtain a more veridical estimate of resolution acuity, although recognition acuity may be more relevant in daily living.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23828648     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-013-2404-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol        ISSN: 0721-832X            Impact factor:   3.117


  30 in total

1.  Recognition thresholds for letters with simulated dioptric blur.

Authors:  H Akutsu; H E Bedell; S S Patel
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 1.973

2.  Converting between measures of slope of the psychometric function.

Authors:  H Strasburger
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-11

3.  Optotype and grating visual acuity in preschool children.

Authors:  Peter Stiers; Ria Vanderkelen; Erik Vandenbussche
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.799

4.  [ON THE RELATION BETWEEN LIGHT SENSE AND VISUAL ACUITY].

Authors:  E AULHORN
Journal:  Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1964-03-03

5.  Pupil unrest: an example of noise in a biological servomechanism.

Authors:  L STARK; F W CAMPBELL; J ATWOOD
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1958-09-27       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Snellen on visual acuity.

Authors:  J E LEBENSOHN
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  1962-01       Impact factor: 5.258

Review 7.  Visual acuity.

Authors:  A Lit
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  1968       Impact factor: 24.137

8.  [DIN-compatible vision assessment of increased reproducibility using staircase measurement and maximum likelihood analysis].

Authors:  U Weigmann; J Petersen
Journal:  Ophthalmologe       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 1.059

9.  High-pass spatial frequency letters as clinical optotypes.

Authors:  B Howland; A Ginsburg; F Campbell
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1978       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Computer-based test to measure optimal visual acuity in age-related macular degeneration.

Authors:  Esther G González; Luminita Tarita-Nistor; Samuel N Markowitz; Martin J Steinbach
Journal:  Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.799

View more
  7 in total

1.  Can VEP-based acuity estimates in one eye be improved by applying knowledge from the other eye?

Authors:  Jessica Knötzele; Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-06-03       Impact factor: 2.379

2.  Use of diffusing filters for artificially reducing visual acuity when testing equipment and procedures.

Authors:  Sven P Heinrich; Isabell Strübin
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 2.379

3.  Imitating the effect of amblyopia on VEP-based acuity estimates.

Authors:  Sven P Heinrich; Celia M Bock; Michael Bach
Journal:  Doc Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 2.379

4.  Differential visual acuity - A new approach to measuring visual acuity.

Authors:  Susan J Leat; Cristina Yakobchuk-Stanger; Elizabeth L Irving
Journal:  J Optom       Date:  2019-05-09

5.  Comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity.

Authors:  David Kordek; Laura K Young; Jan Kremláček
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-02-09       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Zagreb Amblyopia Preschool Screening Study: near and distance visual acuity testing increase the diagnostic accuracy of screening for amblyopia.

Authors:  Mladen Bušić; Mirjana Bjeloš; Mladen Petrovečki; Biljana Kuzmanović Elabjer; Damir Bosnar; Senad Ramić; Daliborka Miletić; Lidija Andrijašević; Edita Kondža Krstonijević; Vid Jakovljević; Ana Bišćan Tvrdi; Jurica Predović; Antonio Kokot; Filip Bišćan; Mirna Kovačević Ljubić; Ranka Motušić Aras
Journal:  Croat Med J       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 1.351

7.  Blur Unblurred-A Mini Tutorial.

Authors:  Hans Strasburger; Michael Bach; Sven P Heinrich
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2018-04-18
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.