Differential visual acuity - A new approach to measuring visual acuity.
Agudeza visual
Agudeza visual de reconocimiento
Agudeza visual de resolución
Optometría pediátrica
Paediatric optometry
Prueba de agudeza visual
Recognition visual acuity
Resolution visual acuity
Visual acuity
Visual acuity testing
Journal
Journal of optometry
ISSN: 1989-1342
Titre abrégé: J Optom
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101482903
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
30
12
2018
revised:
01
04
2019
accepted:
02
04
2019
pubmed:
13
5
2019
medline:
20
6
2020
entrez:
13
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A novel type of acuity measurement, which we refer to as 'differential acuity', requires the observer to identify one unique target among three others which are identical. This is a proof of concept study aimed to determine if differential acuity is equivalent to standard measures of recognition acuity. To create a range of visual acuity, vision was optically blurred in sixteen adults with normal visual acuity. Visual acuity was then measured with the differential acuity targets in both crowded and uncrowded format, and compared with standard ETDRS acuity or with singly presented letters and uncrowded letters were analysed separately. The visual acuity results for crowded and uncrowded letters were analysed separately. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed that when a crowded Sloan C had to be differentiated from three crowded Os (CvsO), the results were not significantly different from ETDRS acuity or from naming one of four letters presented centrally (Name4) (p<0.05). Similar results were found for uncrowded letters - the C versus O and Name4 gave similar visual acuity. The 95% limits of agreement between the naming and C versus O differential acuity measures were between 0.17 and 0.27 logMAR. From this proof of concept study we conclude that differential acuity gives similar results to the ETDRS chart in adults. We infer that the comparable but cognitively simpler differential visual acuity task could be applied in clinical settings for young children or patients with developmental delay who cannot respond by naming or matching.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A novel type of acuity measurement, which we refer to as 'differential acuity', requires the observer to identify one unique target among three others which are identical. This is a proof of concept study aimed to determine if differential acuity is equivalent to standard measures of recognition acuity.
METHODS
METHODS
To create a range of visual acuity, vision was optically blurred in sixteen adults with normal visual acuity. Visual acuity was then measured with the differential acuity targets in both crowded and uncrowded format, and compared with standard ETDRS acuity or with singly presented letters and uncrowded letters were analysed separately.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The visual acuity results for crowded and uncrowded letters were analysed separately. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed that when a crowded Sloan C had to be differentiated from three crowded Os (CvsO), the results were not significantly different from ETDRS acuity or from naming one of four letters presented centrally (Name4) (p<0.05). Similar results were found for uncrowded letters - the C versus O and Name4 gave similar visual acuity. The 95% limits of agreement between the naming and C versus O differential acuity measures were between 0.17 and 0.27 logMAR.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
From this proof of concept study we conclude that differential acuity gives similar results to the ETDRS chart in adults. We infer that the comparable but cognitively simpler differential visual acuity task could be applied in clinical settings for young children or patients with developmental delay who cannot respond by naming or matching.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31078445
pii: S1888-4296(19)30026-3
doi: 10.1016/j.optom.2019.04.002
pmc: PMC6951827
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
41-49Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Spanish General Council of Optometry. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.
Références
Optom Vis Sci. 1998 May;75(5):342-8
pubmed: 9624699
J Exp Child Psychol. 2002 Feb;81(2):194-215
pubmed: 11786009
Scand J Psychol. 1976;17(2):122-4
pubmed: 935830
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1999 Feb;40(2):504-12
pubmed: 9950611
Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1986 May;63(5):313-8
pubmed: 3717283
Optom Vis Sci. 2013 Mar;90(3):236-41
pubmed: 23376895
Eye (Lond). 2012 Apr;26(4):593-600
pubmed: 22193878
Br J Ophthalmol. 2001 Apr;85(4):432-6
pubmed: 11264133
J Am Optom Assoc. 1984 Aug;55(8):561-5
pubmed: 6481065
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
Br J Ophthalmol. 2002 May;86(5):513-6
pubmed: 11973243
Optom Vis Sci. 2006 Aug;83(8):577-81
pubmed: 16909076
Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2013 Sep;251(9):2235-41
pubmed: 23828648
Optom Vis Sci. 2000 Aug;77(8):412-20
pubmed: 10966067
Optom Vis Sci. 1990 Jan;67(1):3-7
pubmed: 2308749
Ophthalmology. 1984 Aug;91(8):947-53
pubmed: 6493704
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008 Sep;28(5):393-403
pubmed: 18761477
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 2;12(2):e0170839
pubmed: 28152076
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1985 Aug;26(8):1158-62
pubmed: 4019107
Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1976 Nov;53(11):740-5
pubmed: 998716
Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2003 Nov;23(6):541-6
pubmed: 14622358
Optom Vis Sci. 2012 Nov;89(11):1611-8
pubmed: 23026789
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006 Aug;47(8):3690-4
pubmed: 16877444
Strabismus. 1999 Mar;7(1):1-24
pubmed: 10401500
Arch Ophthalmol. 1995 Apr;113(4):485-93
pubmed: 7710400
Optom Vis Sci. 1997 Sep;74(9):741-50
pubmed: 9380372
Optom Vis Sci. 2002 Apr;79(4):241-53
pubmed: 11999150
Clin Exp Optom. 2014 Jan;97(1):3-11
pubmed: 23902575
Optom Vis Sci. 2000 May;77(5):270-5
pubmed: 10831217
Am J Ophthalmol. 1982 Jul;94(1):91-6
pubmed: 7091289