Freiburg vision test (FrACT): optimal number of trials?
Efficiency
LogMAR
Precision
Psychophysics
Threshold
Variability
Visual acuity
Journal
Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie
ISSN: 1435-702X
Titre abrégé: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 8205248
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Sep 2024
18 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
19
06
2024
accepted:
03
09
2024
revised:
15
08
2024
medline:
19
9
2024
pubmed:
19
9
2024
entrez:
18
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Visual acuity is a psychophysical threshold that we want to determine as precisely and efficiently as possible. The Freiburg Vision Test FrACT employs the automated Bayesian "Best PEST" algorithm for this purpose: the next optotype size is always selected to be at threshold based on the information acquired so far, thereby maximizing information gain. We assessed the test-retest Limits of Agreement (LoA, Bland & Altman 1986) across 6 to 48 trials in 2 × 78 runs involving 26 participants; visual acuity (in part artificially reduced) ranged from 1.22 to -0.59 LogMAR. LoA exhibited a steep decline from ± 0.46 LogMAR at six trials to ± 0.17 at 18 trials; with more trials, LoA showed less change, reaching ± 0.12 LogMAR at 48 trials. LoA did not significantly change over the wide acuity range assessed here. These findings suggest that 18 trials represent an efficient balance between precision and burden on the participant and examiner. This observation holds for the eight response alternatives used in this study (8 Landolt C orientations) and is anticipated to apply to the ten Sloan letters as well. With only four choices (e.g., tumbling E), more trials will be necessary. What is known When assessing visual acuity, a tradeoff between precision and effort is necessary. What is new A run length of 18 trials is a good compromise between effort and precision for an 8-alternative task (the Landolt C). With 18 trials a 95% confidence interval of ± 0.17 LogMAR for test-retest is found. The test-retest precision is independent of the acuity level over the 1.5 LogMAR range studied here.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39294391
doi: 10.1007/s00417-024-06638-z
pii: 10.1007/s00417-024-06638-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Bailey IL, Lovie-Kitchin JE (2013) Visual acuity testing. From the laboratory to the clinic. Vision Res 90:2–9
doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2013.05.004
pubmed: 23685164
Brown GC (1999) Vision and quality-of-life. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 97:473–511
pubmed: 10703139
pmcid: 1298275
Bach M (1996) The Freiburg Visual Acuity test – automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53
doi: 10.1097/00006324-199601000-00008
pubmed: 8867682
Bach M (2007) The Freiburg visual acuity Test – variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245:965–971
doi: 10.1007/s00417-006-0474-4
pubmed: 17219125
Bach M (2024) Freiburg visual acuity & contrast test, home page. Freiburg Vision Test (‘FrACT’), < https://michaelbach.de/fract/ >. Accessed 2024-09-01
Bach M (2024) Visual acuity cheat sheet. https://michaelbach.de/sci/acuity.html . Accessed 09-07-2024
Lange C, Feltgen N, Junker B, Schulze-Bonsel K, Bach M (2009) Resolving the clinical acuity categories “hand motion” and “counting fingers” using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test (FrACT). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247:137–142
doi: 10.1007/s00417-008-0926-0
pubmed: 18766368
Schulze-Bonsel K, Feltgen N, Burau H, Hansen L, Bach M (2006) Visual acuities “hand motion” and “counting fingers” can be quantified with the freiburg visual acuity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47:1236–1240
doi: 10.1167/iovs.05-0981
pubmed: 16505064
Freundlieb PH, Herbik A, Kramer FH, Bach M, Hoffmann MB (2020) Determination of scotopic and photopic conventional visual acuity and hyperacuity. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 258:129–135
doi: 10.1007/s00417-019-04505-w
pubmed: 31754827
Wikipedia (2024) Accuracy and precision. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision . Accessed 09-07-2024
Watson AB, Pelli DG (1983) QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept Psychophys 33:113–120
doi: 10.3758/BF03202828
pubmed: 6844102
Lieberman HR, Pentland AP (1982) Microcomputer-based estimation of psychophysical thresholds: The best PEST. Behaviour Research Methods & Instrumentation 14:21–25
doi: 10.3758/BF03202110
Smith G, Jacobs RJ, Chan CD (1989) Effect of defocus on visual acuity as measured by source and observer methods. Optom Vis Sci 66:430–435
doi: 10.1097/00006324-198907000-00004
pubmed: 2771329
R Core Team (2020) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. http://www.R-project.org . Accessed 09-07-2024
Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan LD, François R, Grolemund G, Hayes A, Henry L, Hester J, Kuhn M, Pedersen TL, Miller E, Bache SM, Müller K, Ooms J, Robinson D, Seidel DP, Spinu V, Takahashi K, Vaughan D, Wilke C, Woo K, Yutani H (2019) Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software 4:1686
doi: 10.21105/joss.01686
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
pubmed: 2868172
Datta D (2017) blandr: a Bland-Altman method comparison package for R. https://github.com/deepankardatta/blandr . Accessed 09-07-2024
Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the Jackknife. Ann Stat 7:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552
Britton JOT, Ayton LC, Guymer RH, Luu CD, Jolly JK (submitted, personal communication) Test-retest repeatability of visual acuity in very low vision
Kingdom F, Prins N (2010) Psychophysics: A Practical Introduction. Academic Press, London
World Medical Association (2013) World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 310:2191–2194
doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053