-
Journal of Vision Jan 2018Our purpose was to compare reading performance measured with the MNREAD Acuity Chart and an iPad application (app) version of the same test for both normally sighted and... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
Our purpose was to compare reading performance measured with the MNREAD Acuity Chart and an iPad application (app) version of the same test for both normally sighted and low-vision participants. Our methods included 165 participants with normal vision and 43 participants with low vision tested on the standard printed MNREAD and on the iPad app version of the test. Maximum Reading Speed, Critical Print Size, Reading Acuity, and Reading Accessibility Index were compared using linear mixed-effects models to identify any potential differences in test performance between the printed chart and the iPad app. Our results showed the following: For normal vision, chart and iPad yield similar estimates of Critical Print Size and Reading Acuity. The iPad provides significantly slower estimates of Maximum Reading Speed than the chart, with a greater difference for faster readers. The difference was on average 3% at 100 words per minute (wpm), 6% at 150 wpm, 9% at 200 wpm, and 12% at 250 wpm. For low vision, Maximum Reading Speed, Reading Accessibility Index, and Critical Print Size are equivalent on the iPad and chart. Only the Reading Acuity is significantly smaller (I. E., better) when measured on the digital version of the test, but by only 0.03 logMAR (p = 0.013). Our conclusions were that, overall, MNREAD parameters measured with the printed chart and the iPad app are very similar. The difference found in Maximum Reading Speed for the normally sighted participants can be explained by differences in the method for timing the reading trials.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Computers, Handheld; Female; Humans; Male; Mass Media; Middle Aged; Reading; Vision Tests; Vision, Low; Vision, Ocular; Visual Acuity; Young Adult
PubMed: 29351351
DOI: 10.1167/18.1.8 -
Optometry and Vision Science : Official... May 2020This research will help clinicians in advising their color-vision-defective patients regarding their career options.
SIGNIFICANCE
This research will help clinicians in advising their color-vision-defective patients regarding their career options.
PURPOSE
In Canadian railways, individuals with a color-vision-defect (CVD) may qualify for positions at shorter sighting distance from signal lights. The railway companies' medical units use the CN Lantern (CNLan) test, and there is little information available as to whether clinical color-vision tests (CCVTs) can predict the CNLan results. This study determines the ability of some CCVTs to predict the CNLan performance to assist clinicians in advising their CVD patients regarding career options.
METHODS
The CNLan viewing distance was varied between 4.6 and 0.57 m using a geometric progression. The CCVTs were the Hardy, Rand, and Rittler; Ishihara; ColorDx pseudoisochromatic plate (PIP); the Rabin Cone Contrast Test; Color Assessment and Diagnosis; Cambridge Color Vision Test; U.S. Air Force Operational Based Vision Assessment Cone Contrast Test; Farnsworth Munsell D15; and ColorDx D15. Fifty-six normal-color-vision and 63 CVD subjects participated in this study.
RESULTS
Failure of either the Farnsworth Munsell D15 or ColorDx D15 essentially guarantees failure on the CNLan at the 4.6-m distance. The agreement values decreased as the viewing distance decreased.
CONCLUSIONS
To counsel patients regarding a career as a locomotive engineer, clinicians should have either the Hardy, Rand, and Rittler or ColorDx PIP and a D15 test. For patients applying for a position in the yard, a mild-to-moderate classification CVD on HRR or ColorDx PIP indicates a high probability of passing CNLan.
Topics: Adult; Canada; Career Choice; Color Perception Tests; Color Vision; Color Vision Defects; Diagnostic Tests, Routine; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Occupational Health; Railroads; Young Adult
PubMed: 32413004
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001510 -
Optometry and Vision Science : Official... Sep 2019Clinicians who administer the Farnsworth-Munsell D-15 test need to pay attention to the quality and quantity of lighting and the time that they allow for completion of...
SIGNIFICANCE
Clinicians who administer the Farnsworth-Munsell D-15 test need to pay attention to the quality and quantity of lighting and the time that they allow for completion of the test, and all repeat attempts need to be included in reports on compliance with color vision standards.
PURPOSE
The validity of the Farnsworth-Munsell D-15 has been questioned because practice may allow significantly color vision-deficient subjects to pass. In this article, we review the influence of practice and other factors that may affect the performance. These relate to both the design and the administration of the test.
METHODS
We review the literature and present some calculations on limitations in the colorimetric design of the test, quantity and quality of lighting, time taken, and repeat attempts.
RESULTS
In addition to the review of the literature, color differences and luminance differences under selected sources are calculated, and the increases in luminance clues under some sources and for protanopes are illustrated.
CONCLUSIONS
All these factors affect the outcome of the test and need specification and implementation if the test is to be applied consistently and equitably. We recommend the following: practitioners should never rely on a single color vision test regardless of the color vision standard; lighting should be Tcp '' 6500 K and Ra > 90; illuminance levels should be between 200 and 300 lux if detection of color vision deficiency is a priority or between 300 and 1000 lux if the need is to test at the level where illuminance has minimal influence on performance; illuminance should be reported; time limits should be set between 1 and 2 minutes; repeat testing (beyond the specified test and one retest) should be carried out only with authorization; and initial and repeated results should be reported. A set of test instructions to assist in the consistent application of the test is provided in the Appendix.
Topics: Adult; Algorithms; Color Perception Tests; Color Vision; Color Vision Defects; Colorimetry; Humans; Lighting; Male
PubMed: 31479025
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001420 -
Military Medicine Nov 2021The standard issue clear or sun Military Combat Eye Protection (MCEP) is often inadequate in visually challenging training or combat environment. Intermediate-tinted...
INTRODUCTION
The standard issue clear or sun Military Combat Eye Protection (MCEP) is often inadequate in visually challenging training or combat environment. Intermediate-tinted lenses may offer a viable option for warfighters operating in dynamic visual conditions such as moving rapidly from bright sunny areas to darker building interiors in combat. Because the use of intermediate-tinted lenses has been delayed as a result of a potential negative impact on vision performance such as color perception, this investigation evaluated several commercially available intermediate-tinted lenses for operation performance during a U.S. military field training. Test lenses complied with all the requirements of the current MCEP except for the visible light transmittance (VLT) values that ranged between 32 and 62%.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study subjects consisted of 22 service members who attended a military Close Combat and Marksmanship training course in May 2019. Visual and pistol marksmanship performance of three intermediate-tinted lenses (Eye Safety Systems [ESS] Copper [32% VLT], Oakley Prizm TR45 [44% VLT], and ESS Bronze [62% VLT]) was compared to that of a standard issue MCEP, ESS Clear (90% VLT). Quick contrast sensitivity function test was used to assess quality vision (AULCSF, area under a log contrast sensitivity function) and visual acuity (CSF Acuity). Color vision was assessed by Cone Contrast Test. Pistol marksmanship (Bill Drill) was used for performance testing. A pre-survey inquired about MCEP use, and a MCEP survey during the pistol marksmanship testing inquired about lens performance and ranking.
RESULTS
AULCSF and CSF Acuity were significantly affected by the lenses (general linear model, repeated measures, P < .05). Bonferroni post hoc test showed a significant reduction of binocular AULCSF from ESS Clear to Oakley Prizm TR45 (P = .003) and ESS Copper (P < .001) and a significant reduction in binocular CSF Acuity from ESS Clear to ESS Copper (P = .001). Color vision and pistol marksmanship performance were not significantly affected by wearing different lenses (P > .05). Subjectively, there were no statistically significant differences among study lenses in perceived "clarity of vision," "ability to clearly identify the target," or "overall performance" (Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed-rank post hoc test with Bonferroni adjustment, P > .017). Participants ranked Prizm TR45 (44% VLT) and ESS Bronze (62% VLT) lenses significantly more favorably than EES Clear (P = .001 and P = .009).
CONCLUSIONS
Quality of vision and visual acuity decreased with darker lenses; however, the study lenses had insignificant impacts on pistol marksmanship and subjective acceptance. Our surveys indicated that Intermediate-tinted lenses were operationally acceptable and preferred over a standard issue MCEP. While more evaluations for color vision deficient subjects are needed, overall results suggest that commercially available intermediate-tinted lenses may be a viable option to enhance protection and performance in a visually dynamic combat environment.
Topics: Contrast Sensitivity; Humans; Vision Disorders; Vision Tests; Vision, Ocular; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 33263767
DOI: 10.1093/milmed/usaa517 -
Optometry and Vision Science : Official... Sep 2018Systematic lighting assessments should be part of low vision evaluations. The LuxIQ has gained popularity as an assessment tool, but its reliability has not been...
SIGNIFICANCE
Systematic lighting assessments should be part of low vision evaluations. The LuxIQ has gained popularity as an assessment tool, but its reliability has not been examined independently and is necessary for evidence-based vision rehabilitation.
PURPOSE
Besides magnification, improved lighting levels are a common intervention in reading rehabilitation for individuals with low vision. Determining the appropriate lighting can be a complex and time-consuming task. The LuxIQ is a portable lighting assessment tool that can be used to systematically measure lighting preferences; however, there is little independent evidence to support its reliability in low vision rehabilitation.
METHODS
One hundred nine control subjects (age, 18 to 85 years) and 64 individuals with low vision (age, 27 to 99 years) adjusted both the luminance and color temperature parameters on the LuxIQ while viewing a sentence on the MNREAD at their preferred print size for continuous reading. After 30 minutes, they were asked to repeat the same measurements.
RESULTS
Using Bland-Altman plots, test-retest variability was calculated using the limits of agreement (LOAs). For illuminance, the LOA width was 2806 lux for control subjects and 2657 lux for visually impaired participants. For color temperature, the LOA width was 2807 K for control subjects and 2364 K for those with a visual impairment. Difference scores were centered near zero, indicating overall accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS
The measurement of lighting preference lacks the precision necessary for clinical utility, given that the LOA for luminance ranged more than 2600 lux, with normally sighted and low vision participants. Such variability translates into a range of approximately ±40 or 50 W in an incandescent light bulb, depending on the luminance level, making it clinically difficult to narrow down the options for evidence-based lighting recommendations. Next steps are to examine whether the reading behavior of low vision clients is positively affected by interventions that are based on LuxIQ recommendations.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Female; Humans; Lighting; Male; Middle Aged; Reading; Reproducibility of Results; Vision Tests; Vision, Low; Visually Impaired Persons; Young Adult
PubMed: 30153238
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001275 -
Graefe's Archive For Clinical and... Mar 2024The purpose of this study is to investigate test-retest reliability and agreement of the quantitative contrast sensitivity function test (qCSF) in the retina clinic.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this study is to investigate test-retest reliability and agreement of the quantitative contrast sensitivity function test (qCSF) in the retina clinic.
METHODS
A total of 121 right eyes of 121 patients were tested and consecutively re-tested with qCSF in the retina clinic. Outcomes included area under the logarithm of contrast sensitivity function curve (AULCSF), contrast acuity, and contrast sensitivity thresholds at 1-18 cycles per degree (cpd). Test-retest means were compared with paired t-test, variability was compared with the Brown-Forsythe test, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland Altman plots evaluated reliability and agreement.
RESULTS
Mean test-retest differences for all qCSF metrics ranged from 0.02 to 0.05 log units without statistically significant differences in variability. Standard deviations ranged from 0.08 to 0.14. Coefficients of repeatability ranged from 0.16 to 0.27 log units. ICC > 0.9 for all metrics except 1cpd (ICC = 0.84, all p < 0.001); AULCSF ICC = 0.971.
CONCLUSION
qCSF-measured contrast sensitivity shows great test-retest repeatability and agreement in the retina clinic.
Topics: Humans; Contrast Sensitivity; Reproducibility of Results; Vision Tests; Retina
PubMed: 37955702
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-023-06291-y -
American Journal of Otolaryngology 2022To evaluate computerized dynamic visual acuity (DVA) test findings among patients with migraine and to determine whether self-motion sensitivity and visually induced... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate computerized dynamic visual acuity (DVA) test findings among patients with migraine and to determine whether self-motion sensitivity and visually induced migraine symptoms that are seen in migraine patients can be explained by DVA results.
METHODS
Twenty migraine patients and twenty control subjects were evaluated with DVA test during rapid horizontal (left and right) and vertical (up and down) head movements. The subjects were asked to quickly recognize the direction of the Landolt-C optotype on the monitor while moving their heads. Test began with the largest optotype and progressively decreased in size by 0.1 logMAR until the subject could no answer correctly state the orientation of the optotype. DVA test scores of migraine group and control group were compared.
RESULTS
Patient with migraine had significant DVA loss as compared with control subjects in four positions (left DVA, right DVA, up DVA, down DVA respectively p < 0.001, <0.001 = 0.001 and <0.001).
CONCLUSION
Migraine patients were found to have abnormal DVA scores mediated vestibular-ocular reflex. These abnormal DVA findings can explain the pathophysiology of head motion hypersensitivity and visual motion sensitivity that encountered by migraine patients.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Humans; Migraine Disorders; Reflex, Vestibulo-Ocular; Vestibular Diseases; Vision Tests; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 35952527
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2022.103559 -
Klinische Monatsblatter Fur... Nov 2016
Topics: Humans; Refraction, Ocular; Refractive Errors; Reproducibility of Results; Sensitivity and Specificity; Vision Tests
PubMed: 27855448
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-116388 -
Journal of Optometry 2024To compare the eye defocus curves (DCs) obtained with stimuli on red, green, and white backgrounds and to investigate the applicability of the duochrome test (DT) in...
PURPOSE
To compare the eye defocus curves (DCs) obtained with stimuli on red, green, and white backgrounds and to investigate the applicability of the duochrome test (DT) in different age groups.
METHODS
12 elderly (ELD: 59.3 ± 3.9 years) and 8 young (YG: 22.1 ± 1.1 years) subjects were recruited. An optometric assessment with the DT was carried out to obtain the subjective refraction at distance. DCs at distance on green, white, and red backgrounds were measured and the following parameters were deduced: dioptric difference between red-green, green-white, red-white focal positions (minima of the DCs), best corrected visual acuity (BCVA), and widths of the DCs for red, green, and white.
RESULTS
The DC difference between the green-white focal positions (mean ± standard deviation) was -0.12±0.17 diopters (D) (ELD, p= 0.012) and -0.11±0.12 D (YG, p= 0.039), while the red-white difference was not statistically significant. The DC red-green difference was 0.20±0.16 D (ELD, p= 0.002) and 0.18±0.18 D (YG, p = 0.008). The ELD BCVA with green background was significantly worse than BCVA with red (p = 0.007) and white (p = 0.007). The mean value of the DC's width in ELD for green (1.01±0.36 D) was higher than for red (0.77±0.21 D) and for white (0.84±0.35 D), but with no statistical significance.
CONCLUSION
Both age groups showed a slight focusing preference for red when using white light. Moreover, ELD showed a worse BCVA with a green compared to a red background. Despite these results deduced by DC analyses, these aspects do not compromise the possibility of using the DT in clinical practice both in the young and in the elderly. Furthermore, the difference of about 0.20 D between red-green DC in both groups confirms the clinical appropriateness of the widespread use of 0.25 D step as the standard minimum difference in power between correcting lenses.
Topics: Humans; Middle Aged; Young Adult; Visual Acuity; Male; Female; Refraction, Ocular; Adult; Aged; Vision Tests; Aging
PubMed: 38128434
DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2023.100497 -
Journal of Applied Gerontology : the... Feb 2024In 2011, Utah began requiring that drivers aged 65 years and older pass a vision test at each license renewal. This study aims to investigate if the mandatory vision...
In 2011, Utah began requiring that drivers aged 65 years and older pass a vision test at each license renewal. This study aims to investigate if the mandatory vision test associated with motor vehicle fatality and injury rates in older road users. We fit controlled interrupted time series analysis models to compare fatality and injury rates for older adults (65+) affected by the law to younger adults (45-64) unaffected by the law. The models yielded estimates of differential level and slope changes in fatality and injury rates, which we used to estimate policy associations. We did not find evidence that implementing an accelerated vision test for older adults in Utah was associated with a reduction in injury or fatality rates among older (65+) drivers and non-drivers relative to those aged 45-64. Other strategies might be considered to prevent fatal motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) in older adults.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Automobile Driving; Utah; Accidents, Traffic; Vision Tests; Policy
PubMed: 38064224
DOI: 10.1177/07334648231204789