Cargando…

Quantification of Expected Information Gain in Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Tests

We introduce expected information gain to quantify measurements and apply it to compare visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) tests. We simulated observers with parameters covered by the visual acuity and contrast sensitivity tests and observers based on distributions of normal observers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lu, Zhong-Lin, Zhao, Yukai, Lesmes, Luis Andres, Dorr, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Journal Experts 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10275059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37333239
http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3031340/v1
_version_ 1785059833401049088
author Lu, Zhong-Lin
Zhao, Yukai
Lesmes, Luis Andres
Dorr, Michael
author_facet Lu, Zhong-Lin
Zhao, Yukai
Lesmes, Luis Andres
Dorr, Michael
author_sort Lu, Zhong-Lin
collection PubMed
description We introduce expected information gain to quantify measurements and apply it to compare visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) tests. We simulated observers with parameters covered by the visual acuity and contrast sensitivity tests and observers based on distributions of normal observers tested in three luminance and four Bangerter foil conditions. We first generated the probability distributions of test scores for each individual in each population in the Snellen, ETDRS and qVA visual acuity tests and the Pelli-Robson, CSV-1000 and qCSF contrast sensitivity tests and constructed the probability distributions of all possible test scores of the entire population. We then computed expected information gain by subtracting expected residual entropy from the total entropy of the population. For acuity tests, ETDRS generated more expected information gain than Snellen; scored with VA threshold only or with both VA threshold and VA range, qVA with 15 rows (or 45 optotypes) generated more expected information gain than ETDRS. For contrast sensitivity tests, CSV-1000 generated more expected information gain than Pelli-Robson; scored with AULCSF or with CS at six spatial frequencies, qCSF with 25 trials generated more expected information gain than CSV-1000. The active learning based qVA and qCSF tests can generate more expected information than the traditional paper chart tests. Although we only applied it to compare visual acuity and contrast sensitivity tests, information gain is a general concept that can be used to compare measurements and data analytics in any domain.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10275059
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher American Journal Experts
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102750592023-06-17 Quantification of Expected Information Gain in Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Tests Lu, Zhong-Lin Zhao, Yukai Lesmes, Luis Andres Dorr, Michael Res Sq Article We introduce expected information gain to quantify measurements and apply it to compare visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) tests. We simulated observers with parameters covered by the visual acuity and contrast sensitivity tests and observers based on distributions of normal observers tested in three luminance and four Bangerter foil conditions. We first generated the probability distributions of test scores for each individual in each population in the Snellen, ETDRS and qVA visual acuity tests and the Pelli-Robson, CSV-1000 and qCSF contrast sensitivity tests and constructed the probability distributions of all possible test scores of the entire population. We then computed expected information gain by subtracting expected residual entropy from the total entropy of the population. For acuity tests, ETDRS generated more expected information gain than Snellen; scored with VA threshold only or with both VA threshold and VA range, qVA with 15 rows (or 45 optotypes) generated more expected information gain than ETDRS. For contrast sensitivity tests, CSV-1000 generated more expected information gain than Pelli-Robson; scored with AULCSF or with CS at six spatial frequencies, qCSF with 25 trials generated more expected information gain than CSV-1000. The active learning based qVA and qCSF tests can generate more expected information than the traditional paper chart tests. Although we only applied it to compare visual acuity and contrast sensitivity tests, information gain is a general concept that can be used to compare measurements and data analytics in any domain. American Journal Experts 2023-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC10275059/ /pubmed/37333239 http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3031340/v1 Text en https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
spellingShingle Article
Lu, Zhong-Lin
Zhao, Yukai
Lesmes, Luis Andres
Dorr, Michael
Quantification of Expected Information Gain in Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Tests
title Quantification of Expected Information Gain in Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Tests
title_full Quantification of Expected Information Gain in Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Tests
title_fullStr Quantification of Expected Information Gain in Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Tests
title_full_unstemmed Quantification of Expected Information Gain in Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Tests
title_short Quantification of Expected Information Gain in Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Tests
title_sort quantification of expected information gain in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity tests
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10275059/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37333239
http://dx.doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3031340/v1
work_keys_str_mv AT luzhonglin quantificationofexpectedinformationgaininvisualacuityandcontrastsensitivitytests
AT zhaoyukai quantificationofexpectedinformationgaininvisualacuityandcontrastsensitivitytests
AT lesmesluisandres quantificationofexpectedinformationgaininvisualacuityandcontrastsensitivitytests
AT dorrmichael quantificationofexpectedinformationgaininvisualacuityandcontrastsensitivitytests