Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity screening with a new iPad application

Rodríguez‐Vallejo, Manuel; Llorens‐Quintana, Clara; Furlan, Walter D.; Monsoriu, Juan A.

doi:10.1016/j.displa.2016.06.001

Cited by 12 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future studies should include the repeatability along the conventional defocus curve because this information is required in order to know when differences can be attributed to a real measure or to a bias due to the procedure of measurement. Besides this limitation, the reported repeatability limit of the ETDRS at far distance in a previous study (R=0.17) [14] was very close to the obtained far distance with this new app (R=0.18).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

“…No significant differences were found between the ETDRS and the VADC at far distance ( Table 1). A median difference up to one line of VA between both tests might be expected due to the repeatability of the ETDRS chart as it has been previously reported [14]. In fact, Kędzierska et al,[23] reported in the agreement evaluation of ETDRS printed versus mobile device charts that the 59% of cases achieved the same level of visual acuity and 96% had differences of one line or less.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…Despite our interest of not increasing the time of the trial maintaining the psychophysical staircase with the same reversals in the VADC for CSDC, we found a poor repeatability of the procedure around three times higher than that obtained along the VADC ( Table 2). It was expected a poorer repeatability of the CSDC in comparison of VADC, because CS tests are generally less repeatable than VA tests [14,33]. The median test-retest difference in the CS along the defocus curve was -0.1 logCS, which indicates that the CS was one line higher in the second trial in comparison to the first trial probably due to a learning effect ( Table 2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The procedure for obtaining the VA threshold with the ETDRS chart included the following steps [20]: 1) the subject read the first letter of the starting row and advanced one row with each right answer reading only one letter per row, 2) after the first mistake, the subject went to the previous row and read it completely, 3) advancing to the next row if the subject read 3/5 letters or went back to the previous if read less than 3/5; 4) the threshold was the last line for which the subject read 3/5 letters. For contrast sensitivity, the agreement at far distance with the Snellen E was evaluated versus a CSF test previously validated (ClinicCSF) [10,14], consisting of four sinusoidal gratings (3,6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree, cpd) over a mean achromatic background brightness of 85 cd/m2 (Fig. 1C).…”

Section: Conventional Tests Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For this reason, low contrast VA tests [11], Contrast Sensitivity (CS) tests based on letters [12], and sinusoidal gratings [13] have been commonly used for assessing visual performance with MIOLs. CS is less repeatable than VA [14] and therefore requires complex psychophysical methods to obtain reliable measures, taking between 2 to 5 minutes per defocus point for the fastest reported procedures [14,15]. This means that for testing a CSDC with 11 defocus points, time spent would be around 22 and 55 minutes per eye.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Fast Measure of Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Defocus Curves with an iPad Application

Fernández¹,

Rodríguez‐Vallejo²,

Tauste³

et al. 2019

TOOPHTJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To evaluate the repeatability of the fast measurement of the visual acuity (VADC) and contrast sensitivity (CSDC) defocus curves with a new test as well as the agreement of measurements at far distance obtained with the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) chart and the ClinicCSF test for measuring Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF).Method:Records from fifty-nine subjects implanted with Multifocal Intraocular Lenses (MIOLs) were retrieved from our database. VADC and CSDC were measured from +1.00 D to -4.00 D in 0.50 D steps. The agreement with the ETDRS and the CSF at far distance was assessed in comparison to the 0 D location of the VADC and the CSDC, respectively. The repeatability was evaluated in 34 subjects who consecutively repeated two measures.Results:Median Visual Acuity (VA) was -0.1 logMAR with the VADC at 0 D of defocus and 0 logMAR with the ETDRS (p>0.05). A total of 45.8% of eyes showed no differences between both tests and the difference was less than one line of VA in 96.6% of the eyes. The intrasubject repeatability was under one line of VA along all the defocus curve except for positive defocus levels. The CSDC showed the best agreement with the CSF for 18 cycles per degree. The CSDC was less repeatable than VADC. Mean time spent on completing the VADC and CSDC was 7.81 and 7.98 minutes, respectively.Conclusion:The VADC showed good agreement with the ETDRS and good repeatability despite the short testing time. In contrast, poorer repeatability was found for CSDC. Our method would facilitate the inclusion of VADC in clinical practice as it is a fast test, being also the first one including the measure of CSDC.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conventional Tests Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Fast Measure of Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Defocus Curves with an iPad Application

Fernández¹,

Rodríguez‐Vallejo²,

Tauste³

et al. 2019

TOOPHTJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Remote Monitoring of Visual Function in Patients with Maculopathy: The Aphelion Study

Joseph,

Bullimore,

Drawnel

et al. 2023

Ophthalmol Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Remote monitoring of vision, using tools such as the shape discrimination hyperacuity (SDH) test, can detect disease activity in patients with maculopathy. We determined the in-clinic accuracy and repeatability of three myVisionTrack expanded version (mVTx) tests for self-testing of visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity. Methods Aphelion, a single-arm, prospective study conducted at two sites in the USA, included adults with any maculopathy and a baseline VA of 0.7 log of minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) (Snellen 20/100) or better. Participants completed the mVTx tests (tumbling E, Landolt C, contrast sensitivity, and SDH) and standard clinical tests (near and distance Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [ETDRS] charts and the Pelli–Robson contrast sensitivity chart). Test–retest repeatability and agreement between the mVTx tests and the corresponding clinical test were assessed by Bland–Altman analyses. Participants also completed a usability survey. Results The mean age of the 122 participants was 67 years. The most common diagnosis was age-related macular degeneration (42% of patients). The tumbling E test had a test–retest 95% limit of agreement (LoA) of ± 0.18 logMAR; the Landolt C test, ± 0.23 logMAR; the SDH test, ± 0.24 logMAR; and the contrast sensitivity test, ± 0.32 log contrast threshold (logCT). Compared with the distance ETDRS chart, the LoA was ± 0.35 logMAR for the tumbling E test (mean difference, − 0.07 logMAR) and ± 0.39 logMAR for the Landolt C test (mean difference, 0.03 logMAR). For the contrast sensitivity test, the LoA compared with the Pelli–Robson chart was ± 0.30 logCT (mean difference, − 0.25 logCT). Most participants (85%) reported that they learned the tests quickly. The tumbling E test scored the highest on ease of use. Conclusion The mVTx tests of VA are accurate and repeatable, supporting their potential use alongside the SDH test to detect disease progression remotely between clinic visits. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40123-023-00854-2.

show abstract

Impact of the pupil size – central optical zone diameter relationship on visual performance in aspheric multifocal contact lenses

Talens‐Estarelles

Valle²,

García‐Lázaro

2022

Contact Lens and Anterior Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity screening with a new iPad application

Cited by 12 publications

References 31 publications

Fast Measure of Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Defocus Curves with an iPad Application

Fast Measure of Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Defocus Curves with an iPad Application

Remote Monitoring of Visual Function in Patients with Maculopathy: The Aphelion Study

Impact of the pupil size – central optical zone diameter relationship on visual performance in aspheric multifocal contact lenses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About