Cargando…

Differential visual acuity – A new approach to measuring visual acuity

BACKGROUND: A novel type of acuity measurement, which we refer to as ‘differential acuity’, requires the observer to identify one unique target among three others which are identical. This is a proof of concept study aimed to determine if differential acuity is equivalent to standard measures of rec...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leat, Susan J., Yakobchuk-Stanger, Cristina, Irving, Elizabeth L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6951827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31078445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2019.04.002
_version_ 1783486344208580608
author Leat, Susan J.
Yakobchuk-Stanger, Cristina
Irving, Elizabeth L.
author_facet Leat, Susan J.
Yakobchuk-Stanger, Cristina
Irving, Elizabeth L.
author_sort Leat, Susan J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A novel type of acuity measurement, which we refer to as ‘differential acuity’, requires the observer to identify one unique target among three others which are identical. This is a proof of concept study aimed to determine if differential acuity is equivalent to standard measures of recognition acuity. METHODS: To create a range of visual acuity, vision was optically blurred in sixteen adults with normal visual acuity. Visual acuity was then measured with the differential acuity targets in both crowded and uncrowded format, and compared with standard ETDRS acuity or with singly presented letters and uncrowded letters were analysed separately. RESULTS: The visual acuity results for crowded and uncrowded letters were analysed separately. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed that when a crowded Sloan C had to be differentiated from three crowded Os (CvsO), the results were not significantly different from ETDRS acuity or from naming one of four letters presented centrally (Name4) (p < 0.05). Similar results were found for uncrowded letters – the C versus O and Name4 gave similar visual acuity. The 95% limits of agreement between the naming and C versus O differential acuity measures were between 0.17 and 0.27 logMAR. CONCLUSION: From this proof of concept study we conclude that differential acuity gives similar results to the ETDRS chart in adults. We infer that the comparable but cognitively simpler differential visual acuity task could be applied in clinical settings for young children or patients with developmental delay who cannot respond by naming or matching.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6951827
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69518272020-01-13 Differential visual acuity – A new approach to measuring visual acuity Leat, Susan J. Yakobchuk-Stanger, Cristina Irving, Elizabeth L. J Optom Original article BACKGROUND: A novel type of acuity measurement, which we refer to as ‘differential acuity’, requires the observer to identify one unique target among three others which are identical. This is a proof of concept study aimed to determine if differential acuity is equivalent to standard measures of recognition acuity. METHODS: To create a range of visual acuity, vision was optically blurred in sixteen adults with normal visual acuity. Visual acuity was then measured with the differential acuity targets in both crowded and uncrowded format, and compared with standard ETDRS acuity or with singly presented letters and uncrowded letters were analysed separately. RESULTS: The visual acuity results for crowded and uncrowded letters were analysed separately. Repeated measures analysis of variance showed that when a crowded Sloan C had to be differentiated from three crowded Os (CvsO), the results were not significantly different from ETDRS acuity or from naming one of four letters presented centrally (Name4) (p < 0.05). Similar results were found for uncrowded letters – the C versus O and Name4 gave similar visual acuity. The 95% limits of agreement between the naming and C versus O differential acuity measures were between 0.17 and 0.27 logMAR. CONCLUSION: From this proof of concept study we conclude that differential acuity gives similar results to the ETDRS chart in adults. We infer that the comparable but cognitively simpler differential visual acuity task could be applied in clinical settings for young children or patients with developmental delay who cannot respond by naming or matching. Elsevier 2020 2019-05-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6951827/ /pubmed/31078445 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2019.04.002 Text en © 2019 Spanish General Council of Optometry. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Original article
Leat, Susan J.
Yakobchuk-Stanger, Cristina
Irving, Elizabeth L.
Differential visual acuity – A new approach to measuring visual acuity
title Differential visual acuity – A new approach to measuring visual acuity
title_full Differential visual acuity – A new approach to measuring visual acuity
title_fullStr Differential visual acuity – A new approach to measuring visual acuity
title_full_unstemmed Differential visual acuity – A new approach to measuring visual acuity
title_short Differential visual acuity – A new approach to measuring visual acuity
title_sort differential visual acuity – a new approach to measuring visual acuity
topic Original article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6951827/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31078445
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.optom.2019.04.002
work_keys_str_mv AT leatsusanj differentialvisualacuityanewapproachtomeasuringvisualacuity
AT yakobchukstangercristina differentialvisualacuityanewapproachtomeasuringvisualacuity
AT irvingelizabethl differentialvisualacuityanewapproachtomeasuringvisualacuity