Alec Kingsnorth1, Tom Drew1, Bikramjit Grewal1, James S Wolffsohn2. 1. Ophthalmic Research Group, Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. 2. Ophthalmic Research Group, Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. j.s.w.wolffsohn@aston.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Contrast detection is an important aspect of the assessment of visual function; however, clinical tests evaluate limited spatial frequencies and contrasts. This study validates the accuracy and inter-test repeatability of a swept-frequency near and distance mobile app Aston contrast sensitivity test, which overcomes this limitation compared to traditional charts. METHOD: Twenty subjects wearing their full refractive correction underwent contrast sensitivity testing on the new near application (near app), distance app, CSV-1000 and Pelli-Robson charts with full correction and with vision degraded by 0.8 and 0.2 Bangerter degradation foils. In addition repeated measures using the 0.8 occluding foil were taken. RESULTS: The mobile apps (near more than distance, p = 0.005) recorded a higher contrast sensitivity than printed tests (p < 0.001); however, all charts showed a reduction in measured contrast sensitivity with degradation (p < 0.001) and a similar decrease with increasing spatial frequency (interaction > 0.05). Although the coefficient of repeatability was lowest for the Pelli-Robson charts (0.14 log units), the mobile app charts measured more spatial frequencies, took less time and were more repeatable (near: 0.26 to 0.37 log units; distance: 0.34 to 0.39 log units) than the CSV-1000 (0.30 to 0.93 log units). The duration to complete the CSV-1000 was 124 ± 37 seconds, Pelli-Robson 78 ± 27 seconds, near app 53 ± 15 seconds and distance app 107 ± 36 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: While there were differences between charts in contrast levels measured, the new Aston near and distance apps are valid, repeatable and time-efficient method of assessing contrast sensitivity at multiple spatial frequencies.
BACKGROUND: Contrast detection is an important aspect of the assessment of visual function; however, clinical tests evaluate limited spatial frequencies and contrasts. This study validates the accuracy and inter-test repeatability of a swept-frequency near and distance mobile app Aston contrast sensitivity test, which overcomes this limitation compared to traditional charts. METHOD: Twenty subjects wearing their full refractive correction underwent contrast sensitivity testing on the new near application (near app), distance app, CSV-1000 and Pelli-Robson charts with full correction and with vision degraded by 0.8 and 0.2 Bangerter degradation foils. In addition repeated measures using the 0.8 occluding foil were taken. RESULTS: The mobile apps (near more than distance, p = 0.005) recorded a higher contrast sensitivity than printed tests (p < 0.001); however, all charts showed a reduction in measured contrast sensitivity with degradation (p < 0.001) and a similar decrease with increasing spatial frequency (interaction > 0.05). Although the coefficient of repeatability was lowest for the Pelli-Robson charts (0.14 log units), the mobile app charts measured more spatial frequencies, took less time and were more repeatable (near: 0.26 to 0.37 log units; distance: 0.34 to 0.39 log units) than the CSV-1000 (0.30 to 0.93 log units). The duration to complete the CSV-1000 was 124 ± 37 seconds, Pelli-Robson 78 ± 27 seconds, near app 53 ± 15 seconds and distance app 107 ± 36 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: While there were differences between charts in contrast levels measured, the new Aston near and distance apps are valid, repeatable and time-efficient method of assessing contrast sensitivity at multiple spatial frequencies.
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: Augustine N Nti; Hannah R Gregory; Eric R Ritchey; James S Wolffsohn; David A Berntsen Journal: Optom Vis Sci Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 2.106
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