-
Something wrong with this record ?
Mesopic visual acuity is less crowded
F. Pluháček, J. Siderov,
Language English Country Germany
Document type Journal Article
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
- MeSH
- Contrast Sensitivity MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Adolescent MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Reference Values MeSH
- Photic Stimulation MeSH
- Color Vision physiology MeSH
- Mesopic Vision physiology MeSH
- Visual Acuity * MeSH
- Vision Tests methods MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Adolescent MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
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