Literature DB >> 29808376

Mesopic visual acuity is less crowded.

František Pluháček1, John Siderov2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The decrease in visual acuity under low luminance conditions is well known. Recent laboratory evidence showed that crowding under low luminance (mesopic) light levels is less robust than under photopic conditions. The present study examines whether such differences in crowding influence clinical measurements of mesopic visual acuity, including test-retest repeatability.
METHODS: Twenty adult subjects with normal or corrected to normal visual acuity were recruited for the study. Monocular visual acuity was measured under photopic (228 cd/m2) and mesopic (0.164 cd/m2) luminance conditions using a letter chart, similar in principle to the ETDRS logMAR chart, presented on a computer monitor. Three rows of five letters, each row differing in size by 0.05 logMAR from largest to smallest were displayed at the center of the monitor. The level of crowding was varied by varying the separation between horizontally adjacent letters from 100% optotype size to 50, 20, and 10% optotype size. Inter-row spacing was proportional to optotype size. Observers read the letters on the middle row only. Measurements continued by reducing the size of the letters, until three or more errors on the middle row were made. Each correctly identified letter contributed 0.01 to the recorded logMAR score. All measurements were repeated for each subject on two separate days.
RESULTS: Visual acuity (logMAR) was significantly better under photopic than mesopic luminance conditions with a mean difference of 0.48 logMAR. Visual acuity also decreased with decreasing letter separation (i.e. increase in crowding). However, the decrease in visual acuity for the smallest letter separation was less under the mesopic luminance condition, even after accounting for the increased size of threshold acuity letters. Test-retest repeatability for mesopic and photopic conditions was not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS: Crowding under mesopic luminance conditions has less impact on visual acuity than under photopic luminance.

Keywords:  Crowding; Luminance; Mesopic; Photopic; Visual acuity; logMAR

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29808376     DOI: 10.1007/s00417-018-4017-6

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


  34 in total

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

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

Review 2.  VISUAL ACUITY.

Authors:  G WESTHEIMER
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  1965       Impact factor: 24.137

3.  Foveal contour interaction on the edge: response to 'Letter-to-the-Editor' by Drs. Coates and Levi.

Authors:  John Siderov; Sarah J Waugh; Harold E Bedell
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Determinants and standardization of mesopic visual acuity.

Authors:  Rachelle J Lin; Jason S Ng; Andrew L Nguyen
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 1.973

5.  Exact parametric confidence intervals for Bland-Altman limits of agreement.

Authors:  Andrew Carkeet
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.973

6.  Foveal contour interaction for low contrast acuity targets.

Authors:  John Siderov; Sarah J Waugh; Harold E Bedell
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2012-11-29       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement.

Authors:  J M Bland; D G Altman
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1986-02-08       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 8.  Recommended stardard procedures for the clinical measurement and specification of visual acuity. Report of working group 39. Committee on vision. Assembly of Behavioral and Social Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Authors: 
Journal:  Adv Ophthalmol       Date:  1980

9.  Crowding and visual acuity measured in adults using paediatric test letters, pictures and symbols.

Authors:  Sarah J H Lalor; Monika A Formankiewicz; Sarah J Waugh
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials.

Authors:  D B Elliott; M Sheridan
Journal:  Ophthalmic Physiol Opt       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 3.117

View more
  3 in total

1.  Prediction of visual function from automatically quantified optical coherence tomography biomarkers in patients with geographic atrophy using machine learning.

Authors:  Konstantinos Balaskas; S Glinton; T D L Keenan; L Faes; B Liefers; G Zhang; N Pontikos; R Struyven; S K Wagner; A McKeown; P J Patel; P A Keane; D J Fu
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-16       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  Crowding can impact both low and high contrast visual acuity measurements.

Authors:  František Pluháček; John Siderov; Ivana Macháčová
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-29       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  A Comparison of Foveal and Peripheral Contour Interaction and Crowding.

Authors:  Stephanie M Marten-Ellis; Harold E Bedell
Journal:  Optom Vis Sci       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 2.106

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.