Measuring Contrast Sensitivity Under Different Lighting Conditions: Comparison of Three Tests

Bühren, Jens; Terzi, Evdoxia; Bach, Michael; Wesemann, W.; Kohnen, Thomas

doi:10.1097/01.opx.0000216100.93302.2d

Cited by 118 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(33 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As shown in Table 1, the 95% percentile was equivalent to highest score and mode for a majority of the frequencies except in the high FACT 3 cd/m 2 frequencies. Such a pronounced ceiling effect has previously been claimed to limit the usefulness of CS tests (Pesudovs et al 2004;Buhren et al 2006). This is correct if the purpose is to detect subtle loss or change of CS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Contrast sensitivity measured by two different test methods in healthy, young adults with normal visual acuity

Koefoed

Baste

Roumes³

et al. 2014

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT.Purpose: This study reports contrast sensitivity (CS) reference values obtained by two different test methods in a strictly selected population of healthy, young adults with normal uncorrected visual acuity. Based on these results, the index of contrast sensitivity (ICS) is calculated, aiming to establish ICS reference values for this population and to evaluate the possible usefulness of ICS as a tool to compare the degree of agreement between different CS test methods. Methods: Military recruits with best eye uncorrected visual acuity 0.00 LogMAR or better, normal colour vision and age 18-25 years were included in a study to record contrast sensitivity using Optec 6500 (FACT) at spatial frequencies of 1.5, 3, 6, 12 and 18 cpd in photopic and mesopic light and CSV-1000E at spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12 and 18 cpd in photopic light. Index of contrast sensitivity was calculated based on data from the three tests, and the Bland-Altman technique was used to analyse the agreement between ICS obtained by the different test methods. Results: A total of 180 recruits were included. Contrast sensitivity frequency data for all tests were highly skewed with a marked ceiling effect for the photopic tests. The median ICS for Optec 6500 at 85 cd/m 2 was À0.15 (95% percentile 0.45), compared with À0.00 (95% percentile 1.62) for Optec at 3 cd/m 2 and 0.30 (95% percentile 1.20) FOR CSV-1000E. The mean difference between ICS FACT85 and ICS CSV was À0.43 (95% CI À0.56 to À0.30, p < 0.00) with limits of agreement (LoA) within À2.10 and 1.22. The regression line on the difference of average was near to zero (R 2 = 0.03). Conclusion:The results provide reference CS and ICS values in a young, adult population with normal visual acuity. The agreement between the photopic tests indicated that they may be used interchangeably. There was little agreement between the mesopic and photopic tests. The mesopic test seemed best suited to differentiate between candidates and may therefore possibly be useful for medical selection purposes.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Contrast sensitivity measured by two different test methods in healthy, young adults with normal visual acuity

Koefoed

Baste

Roumes³

et al. 2014

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…16 Despite the fact that commercial clinical tests are not able to measure absolute CSF like the CRTs methods do, they could be a good option to compare new screening tests since they are generally accepted by the research community. 17,18,19,20 Clinical CS tests commonly use 9 patches of sinusoidal gratings with different contrast levels. They could differ in the step sizes, ranges, or the psychophysical method to achieve the threshold.…”

Section: Nowadays the Early Treatment Of Diabetic Retinopathy Study mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Fractal Contact Lenses on Peripheral Refraction in Myopic Model Eyes

Rodríguez‐Vallejo

Benlloch

Pons

et al. 2014

Current Eye Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with iPad 2 2. Structured abstract. PurposeTo present two iPad applications (apps) for measuring Visual Acuity (VA) and Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) and to assess reliability and agreement with a commercial screening device. MethodsForty-five healthy subjects with monocular corrected visual acuities better than 0.2 logMAR participated in the agreement study of VA and CSF with iPad and Optec 6500. Results MD of VA was 0.06 logMAR better with AmblyopiaVA than with ETDRS (p<0.001) andLoAs were around ±0.2 logMAR. Test-retest reliability was better with AmblyopiaVA (r=0.15) with no statistically significant differences between days (p>0.05). A good agreement with no significant differences (p>0.05) was obtained with ClinicCSF and FACT. MDs were below 0.05 log units at all the spatial frequencies but non-constant LoAs were manifested at 3.6 and 18 cpd. Null hypotheses of same medians along days were accepted for both tests (p>0.05) but reliabilities were poorer with the increment of the spatial frequency. ConclusionsThe iPad tests showed a good agreement with conventional tests and may be a convenient and faster alternative to some existing commercial screening devices. On the other hand future improvements in test-retest reliabilities should be done for the screening of CSF.

show abstract

“…This value represents the reciprocal of the CS. The logarithm of CS values was used for later statistical analysis (Bu¨hren et al 2006;Dennis et al 2004;Patel et al 2009). …”

Section: Contrast Sensitivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity after posterior lamellar keratoplasty

Nielsen

Hjortdal

2011

Acta Ophthalmologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. Purpose: It has previously been reported that patients who suffer from Fuchs’ endothelial dystrophy (Fuchs’ ED) have decreased contrast sensibility threshold. The removal of endothelial guttata by Descemet’s Stripping Automated Endothelial Keratoplasty (DSAEK) surgery has also been demonstrated to decrease intraocular light scatter and improve contrast thresholds. The purpose of this study was to compare different visual qualities in patients that had undergone DSAEK surgery in one eye while having untreated Fuchs’ dystrophy in the other eye. Methods: Thirty‐two eyes of 16 patients with bilateral Fuchs’ ED who had DSAEK surgery performed in one eye were enrolled. Visual acuity at 100% contrast and contrast sensitivity (CS) as evaluated by a modified simulation of the Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test, was measured in both eyes of each patient. Results: Snellen visual acuity improved in treated eyes from 0.66 ± 0.35 (SD) before surgery to 0.38 ± 0.18 after surgery (log MAR units; p < 0.01). In eyes with untreated Fuchs’ dystrophy, visual acuity was 0.46 ± 0.14. In a pairwise comparison, there was no difference in Snellen visual acuity between treated and nontreated eyes (p = 0.12). Contrast sensitivity was significantly better in DSAEK‐treated eyes compared with untreated eyes. Mean log CS in DSAEK‐treated eyes was 1.06 ± 0.25 compared with a mean log CS of 0.84 ± 0.16 in untreated eyes (p < 0.01). Fourteen of 16 patients (88%) reported that vision in their DSAEK‐treated eye had the best visual quality. Conclusion: In this study, using a paired design, we demonstrate improved CS in DSAEK‐operated eyes when compared with the other eye that had untreated Fuchs’ ED despite the fact that no difference in visual quality was detected with standard Snellen visual acuity. Contrast sensitivity appears to be superior to normal visual acuity measurements in the evaluation of overall visual quality after DSAEK.

show abstract

Measuring Contrast Sensitivity Under Different Lighting Conditions: Comparison of Three Tests

Abstract: There are large discrepancies in the test results between CS testing methods, especially under different lighting conditions. Results from different CS tests are not interchangeable.

Cited by 118 publications

References 38 publications

Contrast sensitivity measured by two different test methods in healthy, young adults with normal visual acuity

Contrast sensitivity measured by two different test methods in healthy, young adults with normal visual acuity

The Effect of Fractal Contact Lenses on Peripheral Refraction in Myopic Model Eyes

Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity after posterior lamellar keratoplasty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About