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.

We have developed a prototype device for take-home use that can be used in the treatment of amblyopia. The therapeutic scenario we envision involves patients first visiting a clinic, where their vision parameters are assessed and suitable parameters are determined for therapy. Patients then proceed with the actual therapeutic treatment on their own, using our device, which consists of an Apple iPod Touch running a specially modified game application. Our rationale for choosing to develop the prototype around a game stems from multiple requirements that such an application satisfies. First, system operation must be sufficiently straightforward that ease-of-use is not an obstacle. Second, the application itself should be compelling and motivate use more so than a traditional therapeutic task if it is to be used regularly outside of the clinic. This is particularly relevant for children, as compliance is a major issue for current treatments of childhood amblyopia. However, despite the traditional opinion that treatment of amblyopia is only effective in children, our initial results add to the growing body of evidence that improvements in visual function can be achieved in adults with amblyopia.

Animals with front facing eyes benefit from a substantial overlap in the visual fields of each eye, and devote specialized brain processes to using the horizontal spatial disparities produced as a result of viewing the same object with two laterally placed eyes, to derived depth or 3-D stereo information. This provides the advantage to break the camouflage of objects in front of similarly textured background and improves hand eye coordination for grasping objects close at hand. It is widely thought that about 5% of the population have a lazy eye and lack stereo vision, so it is often supposed that most of the population (95%) have good stereo abilities. We show that this is not the case; 68% have good to excellent stereo (the haves) and 32% have moderate to poor stereo (the have-nots). Why so many people lack good 3-D stereo vision is unclear but it is likely to be neural and reversible.

Amblyopia, a developmental disorder of the visual cortex, is one of the leading causes of visual dysfunction in the working age population. Current estimates put the prevalence of amblyopia at approximately 1-3%

Electronic displays and computer systems offer numerous advantages for clinical vision testing. Laboratory and clinical measurements of various functions and in particular of (letter) contrast sensitivity require accurately calibrated display contrast. In the laboratory this is achieved using expensive light meters. We developed and evaluated a novel method that uses only psychophysical responses of a person with normal vision to calibrate the luminance contrast of displays for experimental and clinical applications. Our method combines psychophysical techniques (1) for detection (and thus elimination or reduction) of display saturating nonlinearities; (2) for luminance (gamma function) estimation and linearization without use of a photometer; and (3) to measure without a photometer the luminance ratios of the display’s three color channels that are used in a bit-stealing procedure to expand the luminance resolution of the display. Using a photometer we verified that the calibration achieved with this procedure is accurate for both LCD and CRT displays enabling testing of letter contrast sensitivity to 0.5%. Our visual calibration procedure enables clinical, internet and home implementation and calibration verification of electronic contrast testing.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract