Cargando…

Comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity

In a low-cost laboratory setup, we compared visual acuity (VA) for stimuli rendered with Zernike aberrations to an equivalent optical dioptric defocus in emmetropic individuals using a relatively short observing distance of 60 cm. The equivalent spherical refractive error of + 1, + 2 or + 4 D, was a...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kordek, David, Young, Laura K., Kremláček, Jan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7873285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33564011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82965-z
_version_ 1783649354779721728
author Kordek, David
Young, Laura K.
Kremláček, Jan
author_facet Kordek, David
Young, Laura K.
Kremláček, Jan
author_sort Kordek, David
collection PubMed
description In a low-cost laboratory setup, we compared visual acuity (VA) for stimuli rendered with Zernike aberrations to an equivalent optical dioptric defocus in emmetropic individuals using a relatively short observing distance of 60 cm. The equivalent spherical refractive error of + 1, + 2 or + 4 D, was applied in the rendering of Landolt Rings. Separately, the refractive error was introduced dioptrically in: (1) unchanged Landolt Rings with an added external lens (+ 1, + 2 or + 4 D) at the subject's eye; (2) same as (1) but with an added accommodation and a vertex distance adjustment. To compare all three approaches, we examined VA in 10 healthy men. Stimuli were observed on a PC CRT screen. For all three levels of refractive error, the pairwise comparison did not show a statistically significant difference between digital blur and accommodation-plus-vertex-distance-adjusted dioptric blur (p < 0.204). The best agreement, determined by Bland–Altman analysis, was measured for + 4 D and was in line with test–retest limits for examination in the clinical population. Our results show that even for a near observing distance, it is possible to use digitally rendered defocus to replicate dioptric blur without a significant change in VA in emmetropic subjects.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7873285
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78732852021-02-11 Comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity Kordek, David Young, Laura K. Kremláček, Jan Sci Rep Article In a low-cost laboratory setup, we compared visual acuity (VA) for stimuli rendered with Zernike aberrations to an equivalent optical dioptric defocus in emmetropic individuals using a relatively short observing distance of 60 cm. The equivalent spherical refractive error of + 1, + 2 or + 4 D, was applied in the rendering of Landolt Rings. Separately, the refractive error was introduced dioptrically in: (1) unchanged Landolt Rings with an added external lens (+ 1, + 2 or + 4 D) at the subject's eye; (2) same as (1) but with an added accommodation and a vertex distance adjustment. To compare all three approaches, we examined VA in 10 healthy men. Stimuli were observed on a PC CRT screen. For all three levels of refractive error, the pairwise comparison did not show a statistically significant difference between digital blur and accommodation-plus-vertex-distance-adjusted dioptric blur (p < 0.204). The best agreement, determined by Bland–Altman analysis, was measured for + 4 D and was in line with test–retest limits for examination in the clinical population. Our results show that even for a near observing distance, it is possible to use digitally rendered defocus to replicate dioptric blur without a significant change in VA in emmetropic subjects. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-02-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7873285/ /pubmed/33564011 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82965-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Article
Kordek, David
Young, Laura K.
Kremláček, Jan
Comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity
title Comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity
title_full Comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity
title_fullStr Comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity
title_short Comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity
title_sort comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7873285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33564011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82965-z
work_keys_str_mv AT kordekdavid comparisonbetweenopticalanddigitalblurusingnearvisualacuity
AT younglaurak comparisonbetweenopticalanddigitalblurusingnearvisualacuity
AT kremlacekjan comparisonbetweenopticalanddigitalblurusingnearvisualacuity