PURPOSE: To compare optotypes of the Amsterdam Picture Chart (APK) with those of Landolt-C (LC), Tumbling-E (TE), ETDRS and LEA symbols (LEA), to assess their reliability in measuring visual acuity (VA). METHODS: We recruited healthy controls with equal VA and amblyopes with ≥2 LogMAR lines interocular difference. New logarithmic charts were developed with LC, TE, ETDRS, LEA, and APK with identical size and spacing (four optotypes) between optotypes. Charts were randomly presented at 5 m under DIN EN ISO 8596 and 8597 conditions. VA was measured with LC (LC-VA), TE, ETDRS, LEA, and APK, using six out of ten optotypes answered correctly as threshold. RESULTS: In 100 controls aged 17-31, LC-VA was -0.207 ± SD 0.089 LogMAR. Visual acuity measured with TE differed from LC-VA by 0.021 (positive value meaning less recognizable), with ETDRS 0.012, with Lea 0.054, and with APK 0.117. In 46 amblyopic eyes with LC-VA <0.5 LogMAR, the difference was for TE 0.017, for ETDRS 0.017, for LEA 0.089, and for APK 0.213. In 13 amblyopic eyes with LC-VA ≥0.5 LogMAR, the difference was for TE 0.122, ETDRS 0.047, LEA 0.057, and APK 0.019. APK optotypes had a lower percentage of passed subjects at each LogMAR line compared to Landolt-C. The 11 APK optotypes had different thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Small APK optotypes were recognized worse than all other optotypes, probably because of their thinner lines. Large APK optotypes were recognized relatively well, possibly reflecting recognition acuity. Differences between the thresholds of the 11 APK optotypes reduced its sensitivity further.
PURPOSE: To compare optotypes of the Amsterdam Picture Chart (APK) with those of Landolt-C (LC), Tumbling-E (TE), ETDRS and LEA symbols (LEA), to assess their reliability in measuring visual acuity (VA). METHODS: We recruited healthy controls with equal VA and amblyopes with ≥2 LogMAR lines interocular difference. New logarithmic charts were developed with LC, TE, ETDRS, LEA, and APK with identical size and spacing (four optotypes) between optotypes. Charts were randomly presented at 5 m under DIN EN ISO 8596 and 8597 conditions. VA was measured with LC (LC-VA), TE, ETDRS, LEA, and APK, using six out of ten optotypes answered correctly as threshold. RESULTS: In 100 controls aged 17-31, LC-VA was -0.207 ± SD 0.089 LogMAR. Visual acuity measured with TE differed from LC-VA by 0.021 (positive value meaning less recognizable), with ETDRS 0.012, with Lea 0.054, and with APK 0.117. In 46 amblyopic eyes with LC-VA <0.5 LogMAR, the difference was for TE 0.017, for ETDRS 0.017, for LEA 0.089, and for APK 0.213. In 13 amblyopic eyes with LC-VA ≥0.5 LogMAR, the difference was for TE 0.122, ETDRS 0.047, LEA 0.057, and APK 0.019. APK optotypes had a lower percentage of passed subjects at each LogMAR line compared to Landolt-C. The 11 APK optotypes had different thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: Small APK optotypes were recognized worse than all other optotypes, probably because of their thinner lines. Large APK optotypes were recognized relatively well, possibly reflecting recognition acuity. Differences between the thresholds of the 11 APK optotypes reduced its sensitivity further.