Pete R Jones1, Sarah Kalwarowsky1, Janette Atkinson2, Oliver J Braddick3, Marko Nardini4. 1. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), United Kingdom. 2. Department of Developmental Science, University College London (UCL), United Kingdom Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. 3. Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom. 4. Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London (UCL), United Kingdom Department of Psychology, Durham University, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To validate a novel, automated test of infant resolution acuity based on remote eye-tracking. METHODS: Infants aged 2 to 12 months were tested binocularly using a new adaptive computerized test of infant vision using eye tracking (ACTIVE), and Keeler infant acuity cards (KIAC). The ACTIVE test ran automatically, using remote eye-tracking to assess whether the infant fixated a black-and-white grating of variable spatial frequency. Test-retest reliability was assessed by performing each test twice. Accuracy was assessed by comparing acuity measures across tests and with established age-norms, and by comparing low-contrast acuity estimates in adults with data reported previously. RESULTS: All infants completed the ACTIVE test at least once. Median test duration was 101 seconds. Measured visual acuity increased with age (P < 0.001), and 90% of mean acuity estimates were within previously published 90% tolerance limits (based on acuity-card age norms). Acuity estimates were also correlated, within-subjects, with results from the KIAC (P = 0.004). In terms of reliability, 86% of acuity estimates deviated by ≤1 octave, with no significant difference in test-retest reliability between the ACTIVE and KIAC procedures (P = 0.461). In adults, acuity estimates from the ACTIVE test did not differ significantly from values reported by previous authors (P > 0.183). CONCLUSIONS: An adaptive computerized test of infant vision using eye-tracking provides a rapid, automated measure of resolution acuity in preverbal infants. The ACTIVE performed comparably to the current clinical gold standard (acuity cards) in terms of testability, reliability, and accuracy, and its principles can be extended to measure other visual functions. Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
PURPOSE: To validate a novel, automated test of infant resolution acuity based on remote eye-tracking. METHODS: Infants aged 2 to 12 months were tested binocularly using a new adaptive computerized test of infant vision using eye tracking (ACTIVE), and Keeler infant acuity cards (KIAC). The ACTIVE test ran automatically, using remote eye-tracking to assess whether the infant fixated a black-and-white grating of variable spatial frequency. Test-retest reliability was assessed by performing each test twice. Accuracy was assessed by comparing acuity measures across tests and with established age-norms, and by comparing low-contrast acuity estimates in adults with data reported previously. RESULTS: All infants completed the ACTIVE test at least once. Median test duration was 101 seconds. Measured visual acuity increased with age (P < 0.001), and 90% of mean acuity estimates were within previously published 90% tolerance limits (based on acuity-card age norms). Acuity estimates were also correlated, within-subjects, with results from the KIAC (P = 0.004). In terms of reliability, 86% of acuity estimates deviated by ≤1 octave, with no significant difference in test-retest reliability between the ACTIVE and KIAC procedures (P = 0.461). In adults, acuity estimates from the ACTIVE test did not differ significantly from values reported by previous authors (P > 0.183). CONCLUSIONS: An adaptive computerized test of infant vision using eye-tracking provides a rapid, automated measure of resolution acuity in preverbal infants. The ACTIVE performed comparably to the current clinical gold standard (acuity cards) in terms of testability, reliability, and accuracy, and its principles can be extended to measure other visual functions. Copyright 2014 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
Authors: Kenneth Holmqvist; Saga Lee Örbom; Ignace T C Hooge; Diederick C Niehorster; Robert G Alexander; Richard Andersson; Jeroen S Benjamins; Pieter Blignaut; Anne-Marie Brouwer; Lewis L Chuang; Kirsten A Dalrymple; Denis Drieghe; Matt J Dunn; Ulrich Ettinger; Susann Fiedler; Tom Foulsham; Jos N van der Geest; Dan Witzner Hansen; Samuel B Hutton; Enkelejda Kasneci; Alan Kingstone; Paul C Knox; Ellen M Kok; Helena Lee; Joy Yeonjoo Lee; Jukka M Leppänen; Stephen Macknik; Päivi Majaranta; Susana Martinez-Conde; Antje Nuthmann; Marcus Nyström; Jacob L Orquin; Jorge Otero-Millan; Soon Young Park; Stanislav Popelka; Frank Proudlock; Frank Renkewitz; Austin Roorda; Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck; Bonita Sharif; Frederick Shic; Mark Shovman; Mervyn G Thomas; Ward Venrooij; Raimondas Zemblys; Roy S Hessels Journal: Behav Res Methods Date: 2022-04-06
Authors: Alice E Skelton; Gemma Catchpole; Joshua T Abbott; Jenny M Bosten; Anna Franklin Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2017-05-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Linda Forssman; Per Ashorn; Ulla Ashorn; Kenneth Maleta; Andrew Matchado; Emma Kortekangas; Jukka M Leppänen Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Marlou J G Kooiker; Johan J M Pel; Sanny P van der Steen-Kant; Johannes van der Steen Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2016-07-09 Impact factor: 1.355