Comparing the CamBlobs2 contrast sensitivity test to the near Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test in normally-sighted young adults.
CamBlobs2
Pelli-Robson
aberration
contrast sensitivity
limits of agreement
repeatability
Journal
Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)
ISSN: 1475-1313
Titre abrégé: Ophthalmic Physiol Opt
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8208839
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2021
09 2021
Historique:
revised:
21
06
2021
received:
02
03
2021
accepted:
22
06
2021
pubmed:
22
8
2021
medline:
15
12
2021
entrez:
21
8
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Contrast sensitivity (CS) has been proposed as a potential method for patients to assess their vision at home. The CamBlobs2 contrast sensitivity test is meant to be performed easily in the clinic or at home. The purpose of this study was to determine the intra-visit coefficient of repeatability of the CamBlobs2 compared with the near Pelli-Robson test, and the limits of agreement between these two tests on normally-sighted subjects. Twenty-two normally-sighted subjects (mean age 28 ± 4 years) completed two trials of the near Pelli-Robson and CamBlobs2 contrast sensitivity tests within a single visit. Tests were performed monocularly on each eye in random order. Pelli-Robson tests were scored as 0.05 logCS for each letter read correctly after deducting the first triplet. CamBlob2 tests were scored as the highest line where two or fewer blobs were marked correctly. The coefficient of repeatability was determined as 1.96 times the standard deviation of the difference between the two measurements using the same type of chart on the same eye. The limits of agreement between the two tests were evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis. The mean difference between intra-visit measurements for both the near Pelli-Robson and CamBlobs2 was less than 0.05 logCS and the coefficient of repeatability was within ±0.20 log CS for both left and right eyes. The mean ± standard deviation differences between near Pelli-Robson and CamBlobs2 scores was -0.08 ± 0.08 (limits of agreement: -0.24 to 0.09) for right eyes and -0.05 ± 0.10 (limits of agreement: -0.23 to 0.14) logCS for left eyes based on average measurements. The intra-visit repeatability of CamBlobs2 was consistent with the near Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test (±0.20 logCS). With a 0.05 correction, the CamBlobs2 scores showed excellent agreement with the near Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1125-1133Subventions
Organisme : National Institutes of Health/ National Eye Institute
ID : P30 EY07551
Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics © 2021 The College of Optometrists.
Références
Ginsburg AP. Contrast sensitivity and functional vision. Int Ophthalmol Clin 2003;43:5-15.
Ravikumar A, Applegate RA, Shi Y, Bedell HE. Six just-noticeable differences in retinal image quality in 1 line of visual acuity: Toward quantification of happy versus unhappy patients with 20/20 acuity. J Cataract Refract Surg 2011;37:1523-1529.
Nguyen LC, Kauffman MJ, Hastings GD, Applegate RA, Marsack JD. Case report: what are we doing for our “20/20 unhappy” scleral lens patients? Optom Vis Sci 2020;97:826-830.
Mannis MJ, Ling JJ, Kyrillos R, Barnett M. Keratoconus and personality-a review. Cornea 2018;37:400-404.
Pelli DG, Bex P. Measuring contrast sensitivity. Vis Res 2013;90:10-14.
Bradley A, Thomas T, Kalaher M, Hoerres M. Effects of spherical and astigmatic defocus on acuity and contrast sensitivity: a comparison of three clinical charts. Optom Vis Sci 1991;68:418-426.
Ross JE, Bron AJ, Clarke DD. Contrast sensitivity and visual disability in chronic simple glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol 1984;68:821-827.
Hawkins AS, Szlyk JP, Ardickas Z, Alexander KR, Wilensky JT. Comparison of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity, and humphrey visual field testing in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2003;12:134-138.
Hyvärinen L, Laurinen P, Rovamo J. Contrast sensitivity in evaluation of visual impairment due to diabetes. Acta Ophthalmol 1983;61:94-101.
Sokol S, Moskowitz A, Skarf B, Evans R, Molitch M, Senior B. Contrast sensitivity in diabetics with and without background retinopathy. Arch Ophthalmol 1985;103:51-54.
Kleiner RC, Enger C, Alexander MF, Fine SL. Contrast sensitivity in age-related macular degeneration. Arch Ophthalmol 1988;106:55-57.
Stangos N, Voutas S, Topouzis F, Karampatakis V. Contrast sensitivity evaluation in eyes predisposed to age-related macular degeneration and presenting normal visual acuity. Ophthalmologica 1995;209:194-198.
Bradley A, Freeman RD. Contrast sensitivity in anisometropic amblyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1981;21:467-476.
Li J, Spiegel DP, Hess RF, et al. Dichoptic training improves contrast sensitivity in adults with amblyopia. Vis Res 2015;114:161-172.
Puri S, Bhattarai D, Adhikari P, Shrestha JB, Paudel N. Burden of ocular and visual disorders among pupils in special schools in Nepal. Arch Dis Child 2015;100:834-837.
Hastings GD, Applegate RA, Nguyen LC, Kauffman MJ, Hemmati RT, Marsack JD. Comparison of wavefront-guided and best conventional scleral lenses after habituation in eyes with corneal ectasia. Optom Vis Sci 2019;96:238-247.
Mai ELC, Lian I-B, Chang DCK. Assessment of contrast sensitivity loss after intrastromal femtosecond laser and LASIK procedure. Int J Ophthalmol 2016;9:1798-1801.
Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vis Sci 1988;2:187-199.
Dougherty BE, Flom RE, Bullimore MA. An evaluation of the Mars letter contrast sensitivity test. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82:970-975.
Bullimore M, Jansen M, Kollbaum E, Kollbaum P. An iPad test of letter contrast sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci 2014;91:291-296.
Rodríguez-Vallejo M, Remón L, Monsoriu JA, Furlan WD. Designing a new test for contrast sensitivity function measurement with iPad. J Optom 2015;8:101-108.
Elliott DB, Sanderson K, Conkey A. The reliability of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity chart. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1990;10:21-24.
Mäntyjärvi M, Laitinen T. Normal values for the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test. J Cataract Refract Surg 2001;27:261-266.
Haymes SA, Roberts KF, Cruess AF, et al. The letter contrast sensitivity test: clinical evaluation of a new design. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:2739-2745.
Thayaparan K, Crossland MD, Rubin GS. Clinical assessment of two new contrast sensitivity charts. Br J Ophthalmol 2007;91:749-752.
Robson J, Sapotka R, Kidd J, Newman D, Pardhan S. Self-assessment of visual function using new single-use printed charts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2016;57. Available at: iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2564026. (Accessed 10/08/21).
Griffin A, Cheng H, Robson J. Measuring contrast sensitivity using CambBlobs2 disposable paper charts in normal subjects. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2017;58:4231. Available at:iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2641351. (Accessed 10/08/21).
Robson J, Raman R, Srinivasan R, Pardhan S. Contrast sensitivity in glaucoma using simple disposable printed (CamBlobs) charts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2019;60:2488. Available at: iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2742595. (Accessed 10/08/21).
Blackwell RH. Contrast thresholds of the human eye. J Opt Soc Am 1946;36:624-633.
Thibos LN, Applegate RA, Schwiegerling JT, Webb R. Standards for reporting the optical aberrations of eyes. J Refract Surg 2002;18:S652-S660.
Marsack JD, Ravikumar A, Nguyen C, et al. Wavefront-guided scleral lens correction in keratoconus. Optom Vis Sci 2014;91:1221-1230.
Dai GM Wavefront optics for vision correction. Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers. Bellingham, Washington, USA. 2008.
Thibos LN, Hong X, Bradley A, Applegate RA. Accuracy and precision of objective refraction from wavefront aberrations. J Vis 2004;4:9. https://doi.org/10.1167/4.4.9
Hastings GD, Marsack JD, Thibos LN, Applegate RA. Normative best-corrected values of the visual image quality metric VSX as a function of age and pupil size. J Opt Soc Am A 2018;35:732-739.
Carkeet A. Modeling logMAR visual acuity scores: effects of termination rules and alternative forced-choice options. Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:529-538.
Tchakmakian L, Bachir V, Wittich W, Marinier J-A. Camblobs2TM, a novel chart for contrast sensitivity testing, shows correlation to MarsTM chart in MS patients with optic neuritis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2019;60:2281. Available at: iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2742454. (Accessed 10/08/21).
Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;327:307-310.
Salmon TO, van de Pol C. Normal-eye Zernike coefficients and root-mean-square wavefront errors. J Cataract Refract Surg 2006;32:2064-2074.
Hastings GD, Marsack JD, Nguyen LC, Cheng H, Applegate RA. Is an objective refraction optimised using the visual Strehl ratio better than a subjective refraction? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2017;37:317-325.
West SK, Rubin GS, Broman AT, Muñoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, Turano K. How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? The SEE Project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:774-780.