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.

Anglia Vision Research Department of Vision and Hearing Sciences Anglia Ruskin University Cambridge CB1 1PT UK

Department of Optics Palacky University Olomouc Olomouc Czech Republic

See more in PubMed

Optom Vis Sci. 2015 May;92(5):559-65 PubMed

Vision Res. 2014 Mar;96:145-8 PubMed

Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8(4):397-401 PubMed

Adv Ophthalmol. 1980;41:103-48 PubMed

Annu Rev Psychol. 1965;16:359-80 PubMed

Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10 PubMed

Vision Res. 2016 Apr;121:31-38 PubMed

Vision Res. 2013 Jan 25;77:10-3 PubMed

Optom Vis Sci. 2015 Mar;92(3):e71-80 PubMed

Albrecht Von Graefes Arch Ophthalmol. 1964 Mar 3;167:4-74 PubMed

Vision Res. 2013 Aug 30;89:90-5 PubMed

Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 1999 Dec;77(6):673-6 PubMed

J Gen Physiol. 1937 Nov 20;21(2):165-88 PubMed

Eye (Lond). 1997;11 ( Pt 3):411-7 PubMed

Optom Vis Sci. 1994 Nov;71(11):685-8 PubMed

Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2006 May;26(3):326-41 PubMed

Arch Ophtalmol Rev Gen Ophtalmol. 1963 Oct-Nov;23:655-8 PubMed

Optom Vis Sci. 1998 Apr;75(4):249-57 PubMed

Clin Exp Optom. 2013 Jan;96(1):100-5 PubMed

Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1976 Nov;53(11):740-5 PubMed

Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2015 May;253(5):791-5 PubMed

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013 Oct 23;54(10):6934-43 PubMed

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017 May 1;58(5):2796-2803 PubMed

Am J Ophthalmol. 1982 Jul;94(1):91-6 PubMed

Am J Ophthalmol. 1959 Dec;48:807-13 PubMed

Mult Scler. 2017 Apr;23(5):734-747 PubMed

Retina. 1997;17(1):33-7 PubMed

Optom Vis Sci. 1995 Dec;72(12):864-9 PubMed

Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1986;6(3):279-81 PubMed

Optom Vis Sci. 2005 Aug;82(8):698-705 PubMed

Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 1998 Mar;5(1):41-53 PubMed

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1992 Jun;33(7):2325-33 PubMed

Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Oct 23;53(11):7310-4 PubMed

Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8(4):363-70 PubMed

Crowding can impact both low and high contrast visual acuity measurements