Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Mesopic visual acuity is less crowded

F. Pluháček, J. Siderov,

. 2018 ; 256 (9) : 1739-1746. [pub] 20180528

Language English Country Germany

Document type Journal Article

E-resources Online Full text

NLK ProQuest Central from 1997-10-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) from 2009-07-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 1997-10-01 to 1 year ago

PURPOSE: The decrease in visual acuity under low luminance conditions is well known. Recent laboratory evidence showed that crowding under low luminance (mesopic) light levels is less robust than under photopic conditions. The present study examines whether such differences in crowding influence clinical measurements of mesopic visual acuity, including test-retest repeatability. METHODS: Twenty adult subjects with normal or corrected to normal visual acuity were recruited for the study. Monocular visual acuity was measured under photopic (228 cd/m2) and mesopic (0.164 cd/m2) luminance conditions using a letter chart, similar in principle to the ETDRS logMAR chart, presented on a computer monitor. Three rows of five letters, each row differing in size by 0.05 logMAR from largest to smallest were displayed at the center of the monitor. The level of crowding was varied by varying the separation between horizontally adjacent letters from 100% optotype size to 50, 20, and 10% optotype size. Inter-row spacing was proportional to optotype size. Observers read the letters on the middle row only. Measurements continued by reducing the size of the letters, until three or more errors on the middle row were made. Each correctly identified letter contributed 0.01 to the recorded logMAR score. All measurements were repeated for each subject on two separate days. RESULTS: Visual acuity (logMAR) was significantly better under photopic than mesopic luminance conditions with a mean difference of 0.48 logMAR. Visual acuity also decreased with decreasing letter separation (i.e. increase in crowding). However, the decrease in visual acuity for the smallest letter separation was less under the mesopic luminance condition, even after accounting for the increased size of threshold acuity letters. Test-retest repeatability for mesopic and photopic conditions was not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Crowding under mesopic luminance conditions has less impact on visual acuity than under photopic luminance.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc18033051
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20181024151756.0
007      
ta
008      
181008s2018 gw f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00417-018-4017-6 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)29808376
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Pluháček, František $u Department of Optics, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic.
245    10
$a Mesopic visual acuity is less crowded / $c F. Pluháček, J. Siderov,
520    9_
$a PURPOSE: The decrease in visual acuity under low luminance conditions is well known. Recent laboratory evidence showed that crowding under low luminance (mesopic) light levels is less robust than under photopic conditions. The present study examines whether such differences in crowding influence clinical measurements of mesopic visual acuity, including test-retest repeatability. METHODS: Twenty adult subjects with normal or corrected to normal visual acuity were recruited for the study. Monocular visual acuity was measured under photopic (228 cd/m2) and mesopic (0.164 cd/m2) luminance conditions using a letter chart, similar in principle to the ETDRS logMAR chart, presented on a computer monitor. Three rows of five letters, each row differing in size by 0.05 logMAR from largest to smallest were displayed at the center of the monitor. The level of crowding was varied by varying the separation between horizontally adjacent letters from 100% optotype size to 50, 20, and 10% optotype size. Inter-row spacing was proportional to optotype size. Observers read the letters on the middle row only. Measurements continued by reducing the size of the letters, until three or more errors on the middle row were made. Each correctly identified letter contributed 0.01 to the recorded logMAR score. All measurements were repeated for each subject on two separate days. RESULTS: Visual acuity (logMAR) was significantly better under photopic than mesopic luminance conditions with a mean difference of 0.48 logMAR. Visual acuity also decreased with decreasing letter separation (i.e. increase in crowding). However, the decrease in visual acuity for the smallest letter separation was less under the mesopic luminance condition, even after accounting for the increased size of threshold acuity letters. Test-retest repeatability for mesopic and photopic conditions was not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Crowding under mesopic luminance conditions has less impact on visual acuity than under photopic luminance.
650    _2
$a mladiství $7 D000293
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a vidění barevné $x fyziologie $7 D055253
650    _2
$a citlivost na kontrast $7 D015350
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a vidění mezopické $x fyziologie $7 D055255
650    _2
$a světelná stimulace $7 D010775
650    _2
$a referenční hodnoty $7 D012016
650    _2
$a zrakové testy $x metody $7 D014787
650    12
$a zraková ostrost $7 D014792
650    _2
$a mladý dospělý $7 D055815
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Siderov, John $u Anglia Vision Research, Department of Vision and Hearing Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, CB1 1PT, UK. john.siderov@anglia.ac.uk.
773    0_
$w MED00001940 $t Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology $x 1435-702X $g Roč. 256, č. 9 (2018), s. 1739-1746
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29808376 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20181008 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20181024152304 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1339998 $s 1030045
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2018 $b 256 $c 9 $d 1739-1746 $e 20180528 $i 1435-702X $m Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology $n Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol $x MED00001940
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20181008

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...