Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo1, Laura Remón2, Juan A Monsoriu2, Walter D Furlan3. 1. Centro de Tecnologías Físicas, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain; Departamento de Óptica, Universitat de València, 46100 Burjassot, Spain. Electronic address: marodva1@upvnet.upv.es. 2. Centro de Tecnologías Físicas, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain. 3. Departamento de Óptica, Universitat de València, 46100 Burjassot, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To introduce a new application (ClinicCSF) to measure Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) with tablet devices, and to compare it against the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT). METHODS: A total of 42 subjects were arranged in two groups of 21 individuals. Different versions of the ClinicCSF (.v1 and .v2) were used to measure the CSF of each group with the same iPad and the results were compared with those measured with the FACT. The agreements between ClinicCSF and FACT for spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) were represented by Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in CSF of both groups were found due to the change of the ClinicCSF version (p<0.05) while no differences were manifested with the use of the same FACT test. The best agreement with the FACT was found with the ClinicCSF.v2 with no significant differences in all the evaluated spatial frequencies. However, the 95% confidence intervals for mean differences between ClinicCSF and FACT were lower for the version which incorporated a staircase psychophysical method (ClinicCSF.v1), mainly for spatial frequencies of 6, 12 and 18 cpd. CONCLUSIONS: The new ClinicCSF application for iPad retina showed no significant differences with FACT test when the same contrast sensitivity steps were used. In addition, it is shown that the accurateness of a vision screening could be improved with the use of an appropriate psychophysical method.
PURPOSE: To introduce a new application (ClinicCSF) to measure Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) with tablet devices, and to compare it against the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT). METHODS: A total of 42 subjects were arranged in two groups of 21 individuals. Different versions of the ClinicCSF (.v1 and .v2) were used to measure the CSF of each group with the same iPad and the results were compared with those measured with the FACT. The agreements between ClinicCSF and FACT for spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) were represented by Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences in CSF of both groups were found due to the change of the ClinicCSF version (p<0.05) while no differences were manifested with the use of the same FACT test. The best agreement with the FACT was found with the ClinicCSF.v2 with no significant differences in all the evaluated spatial frequencies. However, the 95% confidence intervals for mean differences between ClinicCSF and FACT were lower for the version which incorporated a staircase psychophysical method (ClinicCSF.v1), mainly for spatial frequencies of 6, 12 and 18 cpd. CONCLUSIONS: The new ClinicCSF application for iPad retina showed no significant differences with FACT test when the same contrast sensitivity steps were used. In addition, it is shown that the accurateness of a vision screening could be improved with the use of an appropriate psychophysical method.
Authors: Joaquín Fernández; Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo; Javier Martínez; Ana Tauste; David P Piñero Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-10-18 Impact factor: 1.779
Authors: Sarah Amanullah; Joseph Okudolo; Kamran Rahmatnejad; Shuai-Chun Lin; Sheryl S Wizov; Remy S Manzi Muhire; Lisa A Hark; Cindy X Zheng; Tingting Zhan; George L Spaeth Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2017-09-05 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Esmael Habtamu; Andrew Bastawrous; Nigel M Bolster; Zerihun Tadesse; E Kelly Callahan; Bizuayehu Gashaw; David Macleod; Matthew J Burton Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 3.283