-
Graefe's Archive For Clinical and... Sep 2021Stereopsis is a fundamental skill in human vision and visual actions. There are many ways to test and quantify stereoacuity: traditional paper and new digital...
PURPOSE
Stereopsis is a fundamental skill in human vision and visual actions. There are many ways to test and quantify stereoacuity: traditional paper and new digital applications are both valid ways to test the stereoacuity. The aim of this study is to compare the results obtained using standard tests and the new Stereoacuity Test App developed by the University of Bergamo.
METHODS
A group of 497 children (272 males), aged between 6 and 11 years old, were tested using different tests for the quantification of stereopsis at near. These tests were TNO, Weiss EKW, and the new developed Stereoacuity Test App.
RESULTS
A one-way repeated measure ANOVA showed that the three tests give different thresholds of stereoacuity (p < 0.0001). Post hoc analyses with Bonferroni correction showed that all tests showed different thresholds (p < 0.0001). The lower threshold was obtained by Titmus Stereo Test followed by Stereoacuity App, Weiss MKW, and TNO.
CONCLUSION
The stereoacuity based on global stereopsis showed that the better values were obtained in order by Stereoacuity Test App, TNO, and Weiss EKW. However, the clinical significance of their values is similar. The new digital test showed a greater compliance by the child, showing itself in tune with the digital characteristics of today's children.
Topics: Child; Depth Perception; Humans; Male; Mobile Applications; Vision Tests; Vision, Binocular; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 33907883
DOI: 10.1007/s00417-021-05195-z -
Translational Vision Science &... Mar 2023To describe two new stereoacuity tests: the eRDS v6 stereotest, a global dynamic random dot stereogram (dRDS) test, and the Vivid Vision Stereo Test version 2 (VV), a...
PURPOSE
To describe two new stereoacuity tests: the eRDS v6 stereotest, a global dynamic random dot stereogram (dRDS) test, and the Vivid Vision Stereo Test version 2 (VV), a local or "contour" stereotest for virtual reality (VR) headsets; and to evaluate the tests' reliability, validity compared to a dRDS standard, and learning effects.
METHODS
Sixty-four subjects passed a battery of stereotests, including perceiving depth from RDS. Validity was evaluated relative to a tablet-based dRDS reference test, ASTEROID. Reliability and learning effects were assessed over six sessions.
RESULTS
eRDS v6 was effective at measuring small thresholds (<10 arcsec) and had a moderate correlation (0.48) with ASTEROID. Across the six sessions, test-retest reliability was good, varying from 0.84 to 0.91, but learning occurred across the first three sessions. VV did not measure stereoacuities below 15 arcsec. It had a weak correlation with ASTEROID (0.27), and test-retest reliability was poor to moderate, varying from 0.35 to 0.74; however, no learning occurred between sessions.
CONCLUSIONS
eRDS v6 is precise and reliable but shows learning effects. If repeated three times at baseline, this test is well suited as an outcome measure for testing interventions. VV is less precise, but it is easy and rapid and shows no learning. It may be useful for testing interventions in patients who have no global stereopsis.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE
eRDS v6 is well suited as an outcome measure to evaluate treatments that improve adult stereodepth perception. VV can be considered for screening patient with compromised stereovision.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Vision Tests; Depth Perception; Dystonic Disorders
PubMed: 36857068
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.12.3.1 -
Clinical & Experimental Optometry Sep 2021: Refracting low vision patients require special procedures and strategies. A device-taking the reduced visual acuity and higher blur tolerance into account-is designed...
: Refracting low vision patients require special procedures and strategies. A device-taking the reduced visual acuity and higher blur tolerance into account-is designed to measure refraction in this group.: Instant Vision Assessment Device (IVAD) is a stenopaeic slit refraction system in a binocular telescopic optometer calibrated to measure refraction. This study aims to validate IVAD in measuring refraction of low vision patients.: Refractions were measured with IVAD on the right eyes of 35 normal subjects (ages nine to 69) and on the better eyes of 20 low vision subjects (ages 60 to 90) and compared with subjective refraction (SR). The visual acuities were compared in the low vision group. Paired Student t-test and Bland-Altman analysis were used to test the significance of difference and limits of agreement between methods, respectively.: In normal subjects, mean spherical equivalent refraction (M) measured by IVAD and SR was -2.88 ± 2.51 D and -2.72 ± 2.29 D, respectively, and the difference of -0.16 ± 0.47 D was not statistically significant (p = 0.05, t = 2.03). In low vision subjects, M measured by IVAD and SR was-0.66 ± 2.64 D and -0.55 ± 2.61 D, respectively, and the difference of -0.11 ± 0.59 D was also not statistically significant (p = 0.43, t = 2.09). Only the astigmatism J0 in the normal subject group of -0.03 ± 0.24 D by IVAD and 0.07 ± 0.17 D by SR showed a statistically significant difference of -0.10 ± 0.25 D (p = 0.04, t = 2.03). In low vision subjects, mean visual acuities with refraction from IVAD and SR were 0.52 ± 0.32 logMAR and 0.53 ± 0.32 logMAR, respectively, and the difference of 0.01 ± 0.07 logMAR was not statistically significant (p = 0.51, t = 2.09). At least 80% of the IVAD measure of refraction components (M, J0, J45) were within ±0.50 D of SR measure.: IVAD is a practical and valid refraction method for low vision patients.
Topics: Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Humans; Middle Aged; Refraction, Ocular; Reproducibility of Results; Vision Tests; Vision, Low; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 33689633
DOI: 10.1080/08164622.2021.1878825 -
Journal of Alzheimer's Disease : JAD 2019Vision impairments are prevalent, but underdiagnosed in individuals with dementia living in long-term care (LTC). Effective screening tools could identify remediable... (Review)
Review
Vision impairments are prevalent, but underdiagnosed in individuals with dementia living in long-term care (LTC). Effective screening tools could identify remediable vision problems. This scoping review was conducted to identify vision screening tests used with individuals with dementia and assesses their suitability for administration by nurses in LTC. A literature search using the Arksey and O'Malley (2005) method included research articles, conference proceedings, and dissertations. Data were included from participants over 65 years of age with a diagnosis of probable dementia. A panel of vision experts evaluated the suitability of the candidate vision tests. The search yielded 179 publications that met the inclusion criteria. Of 134 vision tests that were identified, 19 were deemed suitable for screening by nurses in LTC. Tests screened for acuity (12), visual field (1), anatomy (2), color vision (2), and general visual abilities (2). Tests were excluded because of complexity of interpretation (90), need for specialized training (83), use in research only (57), need for specialized equipment (54), not assessing visual function (44), long test duration (21), uncommonness (13), and needing an act reserved for specialists (7). Psychometric properties were not often reported for tests. Few of the tests identified had been validated for use with individuals with dementia. Based on our review, few tests were deemed suitable for use by nurses to assess this population in LTC. Identifying appropriate tools to screen vision in individuals with dementia is a necessary first step to interventions that could potentially improve functioning and quality of life.
Topics: Aged; Dementia; Humans; Long-Term Care; Vision Disorders; Vision Tests
PubMed: 30909236
DOI: 10.3233/JAD-181129 -
Translational Vision Science &... Dec 2020Visual prostheses aim to restore, at least to some extent, vision that leads to the type of perception available for sighted patients. Their effectiveness is almost...
UNLABELLED
Visual prostheses aim to restore, at least to some extent, vision that leads to the type of perception available for sighted patients. Their effectiveness is almost always evaluated using clinical tests of vision. Clinical vision tests are designed to measure the limits of parameters of a functioning visual system. I argue here that these tests are rarely suited to determine the ability of prosthetic devices and other therapies to restore vision. This paper describes and explains many limitations of these evaluations. Prosthetic vision testing often makes use of multiple-alternative forced-choice (MAFC) procedures. Although these paradigms are suitable for many studies, they are frequently problematic in vision restoration evaluation. Two main types of problems are identified: (1) where nuisance variables provide spurious cues that can be learned in repeated training, which is common in prosthetic vision, and thus defeat the purpose of the test; and (2) even though a test is properly designed and performed, it may not actually measure what the researchers believe, and thus the interpretation of results is wrong. Examples for both types of problems are presented. Additional problems arise from confounding factors in the administration of tests are pointed as limitations of current device evaluation. For example, head tracing of magnified objects enlarged to compensate for the system's low resolution, in distinction from the scanning head (camera) movements with which users of prosthetic devices expand the limited field of view. Because of these problems, the ability to perform satisfactorily on the clinical tests is necessary but insufficient to prove vision restoration, therefore, additional tests are needed. I propose some directions to pursue in such testing.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE
Numerous prosthetic devices are being developed and introduced to the market. Proving the utility of these devices is crucial for regulatory and even for post market acceptance, which so far has largely failed, in my opinion. Potential reasons for the failures despite success in regulatory testing and directions for designing improved testing are provided. It is hoped that improved testing will guide improved designs of future prosthetic systems and other vision restoration approaches.
Topics: Humans; Movement; Vision Tests; Vision, Ocular; Visual Prosthesis
PubMed: 33384886
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.13.32 -
Translational Vision Science &... Dec 2020To investigate contrast sensitivity measures in glaucoma eyes with moderate to severe glaucoma.
PURPOSE
To investigate contrast sensitivity measures in glaucoma eyes with moderate to severe glaucoma.
METHODS
The study included 50 eyes of 47 pseudophakic patients with moderate or severe glaucoma who were seen at a tertiary center from 2017 to 2020. Assessment of contrast sensitivity using the Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity (SPARCS) test and the Pelli-Robson (PR) chart was compared in eyes with mean deviation (MD) < -12 decibels (dB) and > -20 dB (group 1), MD < -20 dB and > -30 dB (group 2), or MD < -30 dB (group 3). Multivariate regression analysis was used to analyze the association of visual field MD with SPARCS/PR scores and various clinical variables, including age, diagnosis, and logMar visual acuity.
RESULTS
SPARCS total scores and quadrant-wise scores were significantly different in all of the quadrants, whereas central scores and PR contrast sensitivity were similar across groups. The total SPARCS scores predicted the change in MD (β = 0.5, < 0.001, = 61.8%) with minimal association of other quadrantic or PR scores. Total SPARCS scores of <45 and <38 predicted severe glaucoma with MD crossing -20 dB (sensitivity, 70.5%; specificity, 80.9%) and -30 dB (sensitivity, 79.3%; specificity, 77.7%), respectively. The logMar visual acuity did not correlate with any contrast sensitivity measure or clinical variables in this study.
CONCLUSIONS
The total SPARCS score may be used in staging glaucoma severity and to assess visual function in eyes with severe glaucoma.
TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE
The SPARCS test is a useful tool for assessing visual function in advanced glaucoma beyond MD worse than -20 dB or -30 dB.
Topics: Contrast Sensitivity; Glaucoma; Humans; Prospective Studies; Vision Tests; Visual Fields
PubMed: 33384893
DOI: 10.1167/tvst.9.13.39 -
JAMA Ophthalmology Mar 2021Many ophthalmology appointments have been converted to telemedicine assessments. The use of a printed vision chart for ophthalmology telemedicine appointments that can...
IMPORTANCE
Many ophthalmology appointments have been converted to telemedicine assessments. The use of a printed vision chart for ophthalmology telemedicine appointments that can be used by people who are excluded from digital testing has yet to be validated.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the repeatability of visual acuity measured using the Home Acuity Test (HAT) and the agreement between the HAT and the last in-clinic visual acuity.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This diagnostic study was conducted from May 11 to 22, 2020, among 50 control participants and 100 adult ophthalmology outpatients who reported subjectively stable vision and were attending routine telemedicine clinics. Bland-Altman analysis of corrected visual acuity measured with the HAT was compared with the last measured in-clinic visual acuity on a conventional Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study logMAR chart.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
For control participants, repeatability of the HAT and agreement with standard logMAR visual acuity measurement. For ophthalmology outpatients, agreement with the last recorded in-clinic visual acuity and with the International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 11th Revision visual impairment category.
RESULTS
A total of 50 control participants (33 [66%] women; mean [SD] age, 36.0 [10.8] years) and 100 ophthalmology patients with a wide range of diseases (65 [65%] women; mean [SD] age, 55.3 [22.2] years) were recruited. For control participants, mean (SD) test-retest difference in the HAT line score was -0.012 (0.06) logMAR, with limits of agreement (LOA) between -0.13 and 0.10 logMAR. The mean (SD) difference in visual acuity compared with conventional vision charts was -0.14 (0.14) logMAR (range, -0.4 to 0.18 log MAR) (-7 letters) in controls, with LOA of -0.41 to 0.12 logMAR (-20 to 6 letters). For ophthalmology outpatients, the mean (SD) difference in visual acuity was -0.10 (0.17) logMAR (range, -0.5 to 0.3 logMAR) (1 line on a conventional logMAR sight chart), with the HAT indicating poorer visual acuity than the previous in-clinic test, and LOA of -0.44 to 0.23 logMAR (-22 to 12 letters). There was good agreement in the visual impairment category for ophthalmology outpatients (Cohen κ = 0.77 [95% CI, 0.74-0.81]) and control participants (Cohen κ = 0.88 [95% CI, 0.88-0.88]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
This study suggests that the HAT can be used to measure visual acuity by telephone for a wide range of ophthalmology outpatients with diverse conditions. Test-retest repeatability is relatively high, and agreement in the visual impairment category is good for this sample, supporting the use of printed charts in this context.
Topics: Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Outpatients; Printing; Reproducibility of Results; Telemedicine; Vision Disorders; Vision Screening; Vision Tests; Young Adult
PubMed: 33410910
DOI: 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2020.5972 -
Korean Journal of Ophthalmology : KJO Oct 2020To determine whether contrast sensitivity (CS) can represent photophobia in intermittent exotropia (IXT) by comparing the CS test with and without glare stimulus, and to...
PURPOSE
To determine whether contrast sensitivity (CS) can represent photophobia in intermittent exotropia (IXT) by comparing the CS test with and without glare stimulus, and to analyze the factors of IXT affecting CS.
METHODS
We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 107 patients with basic-type IXT. We compared CS under mesopic and photopic conditions, with and without glare. We compared the difference in CS before and after glare (ΔCS) between mesopic and photopic conditions, and compared CS with glare between patients with and without photophobia. The correlations between the clinical features of IXT and CS were analyzed.
RESULTS
There was no significant reduction in CS at all spatial frequencies by glare stimulus. ΔCS was greater at high spatial frequencies under photopic conditions than under mesopic conditions. The group with subjective photophobia showed lower CS at 10.2 cpd under mesopic conditions with glare. CS showed a negative correlation with stereopsis under both mesopic and photopic conditions, and a positive correlation with fusional ability at low and intermediate spatial frequencies under mesopic conditions. ΔCS was smaller at intermediate spatial frequencies with better fusional ability, greater at high spatial frequencies with photophobia, and greater at intermediate spatial frequencies with a higher frequency of exotropia.
CONCLUSIONS
The CS test could not represent photophobia in IXT. However, CS tended to decrease with glare stimulus, and CS under mesopic conditions with glare was worse when accompanied by photophobia. Moreover, a poorer degree of stereopsis was associated with lower CS, and better fusional ability was associated with higher CS under mesopic conditions. Therefore, the CS test can be considered helpful in evaluating sensory function in IXT.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Contrast Sensitivity; Exotropia; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Retrospective Studies; Vision Tests; Visual Acuity; Young Adult
PubMed: 33099561
DOI: 10.3341/kjo.2020.0058 -
Romanian Journal of Ophthalmology 2017The aim of the study was to analyze the effects that gadgets have on eyesight quality. A prospective observational study was conducted from January to July 2016, on 60... (Observational Study)
Observational Study
The aim of the study was to analyze the effects that gadgets have on eyesight quality. A prospective observational study was conducted from January to July 2016, on 60 people who were divided into two groups: Group 1 - 30 middle school pupils with a mean age of 11.9 ± 1.86 and Group 2 - 30 patients evaluated in the Ophthalmology Clinic, "Sf. Spiridon" Hospital, Iași, with a mean age of 21.36 ± 7.16 years. The clinical parameters observed were the following: visual acuity (VA), objective refraction, binocular vision (BV), fusional amplitude (FA), Schirmer's test. A questionnaire was also distributed, which contained 8 questions that highlighted the gadget's impact on the eyesight. The use of different gadgets, such as computer, laptops, mobile phones or other displays become part of our everyday life and people experience a variety of ocular symptoms or vision problems related to these. Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS) represents a group of visual and extraocular symptoms associated with sustained use of visual display terminals. Headache, blurred vision, and ocular congestion are the most frequent manifestations determined by the long time use of gadgets. Mobile phones and laptops are the most frequently used gadgets. People who use gadgets for a long time have a sustained effort for accommodation. A small amount of refractive errors (especially myopic shift) was objectively recorded by various studies on near work. Dry eye syndrome could also be identified, and an improvement of visual comfort could be observed after the instillation of artificial tears drops. Computer Vision Syndrome is still under-diagnosed, and people should be made aware of the bad effects the prolonged use of gadgets has on eyesight.
Topics: Accommodation, Ocular; Adult; Female; Humans; Male; Myopia; Prospective Studies; User-Computer Interface; Vision Tests; Vision, Binocular; Visual Acuity; Young Adult
PubMed: 29450383
DOI: 10.22336/rjo.2017.21 -
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual... Jan 2022To assess whether monocular contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity impairments remain when visual acuity is fully recovered in children with refractive amblyopia.
PURPOSE
To assess whether monocular contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity impairments remain when visual acuity is fully recovered in children with refractive amblyopia.
METHODS
A retrospective review of 487 patients diagnosed with refractive amblyopia whose visual acuity improved to 0.08 logMAR or better in both eyes following optical treatment was conducted. Measurements of monocular contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity had been made when visual acuity normalized. All patients had been treated with refractive correction for approximately 2 years following diagnosis. No other treatments were provided. Monocular contrast sensitivity was measured using the CSV-1000E chart for children 6 years of age or younger and a psychophysical technique called the quick contrast sensitivity function in older children. Stereoacuity was measured using the Random Dot Test that includes monocular cues and the Randot Stereoacuity Test that does not have monocular cues.
RESULTS
Statistically significant interocular differences in contrast sensitivity were observed. These differences tended to occur at higher spatial frequencies (12 and 18 cycles per degree). Stereoacuity within the age-specific normal range was achieved by 47.4% of patients for the Random Dot Test and only 23.1% of patients for the Randot Stereoacuity Test.
CONCLUSIONS
Full recovery of visual acuity following treatment for refractive amblyopia does not equalize interocular contrast sensitivity or restore normal stereopsis. Alternative therapeutic approaches that target contrast sensitivity and/or binocular vision are required.
Topics: Amblyopia; Child; Child, Preschool; Contrast Sensitivity; Depth Perception; Eyeglasses; Female; Humans; Hyperopia; Male; Myopia; Retrospective Studies; Sensory Deprivation; Vision Tests; Vision, Binocular; Visual Acuity
PubMed: 34989762
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.63.1.6