Beyond 20/20: New Clinical Methods to Quantify Vision Performance

Rabin, Jeff; Gooch, John; Ivan, Douglas J.; Harvey, Richard W.; Aaron, Michelle

doi:10.7205/milmed-d-10-00320

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Subject demographics and visual characteristics are presented in Table 1. The Super Vision Test VA and CS values were within normal limits [16]. The contrast sensitivity function was plotted, and peak sensitivity was observed at 3.0 cycles per degree in this cohort (Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 51%

“…In this proof-of-concept work, the authors sought to validate VIPER at photopic light levels and eliminate the decline in CS and VA as confounding factors. Measurements with the Super Vision Test found values within normal limits [16]. The Super Vision Test and 25% contrast test, sensitive to both over-and undercorrection, were performed to obtain the visual characteristics of the study cohort.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SVT visual acuity (SVT-VA) was assessed by altering the letter sizes (20/32 to 20/5 log-MAR scale), while the SVT-CS was tested by adjusting the contrast of letters of a specific size (20/25; logMAR 0.10). When scoring the SVT-VA, a score of − 0.02 log-MAR units was recorded for each letter correctly identified, whereas a score of 0.05 logarithm of the contrast sensitivity (logCS) units was calculated for each correct letter in the SVT-CS [16].…”

Section: Clinical Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Preliminary evaluation of the VIsion PERformance (VIPER) simulator

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study evaluated the VIsion PERformance (VIPER) simulator's ability to assess the functional visual performance in warfighters conducting civilian and military tasks. Methods: Thirty service members, aged 25-35 years old with a best corrected distance visual acuity (VA) better than or equal to 20/20 or logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) 0.00, were randomized to locate and identify road signs and mock improvised explosive devices (IEDs) under either daytime conditions or with infrared imagery, with (cc) and without (sc) wearing their habitual correction. Participants also underwent binocular uncorrected (UDVA) and corrected (CDVA) visual assessment, refraction, contrast sensitivity testing and wavefront aberrometry. Results: The mean age was 28.47 years. The manifest spherical equivalent was − 3.16 ± 1.75 diopters (D), the UDVA in both eyes (OU) was logMAR 0.83 ± 0.47, and the CDVA OU was − 0.11 ± 0.06. For VIPER, the mean difference in the detection distance (DD) for road signs ccDD vs. scDD was 76.7 ± 52.8 m (P < 0.001). The average difference in identification distance (ID) ccID vs. scID was 13.9 ± 6.3 m (P < 0.001). The mean accuracies were 83.5 and 27.9% for cc and sc, respectively (P < 0.001). The regression analysis indicated that a 1.6 m change in the distance accounts for a 1% change in the accuracy (P = 0.002). Without correction, a 4.1 m change accounts for a 1% change in the accuracy (P < 0.001). The average IED ccDD was 29.9 ± 8.2 m, and that for scDD was 13.2 ± 13.6 m (P < 0.001). The average IED ccID was 32.2 ± 6.2 m and that for the scID was 7.4 ± 10.3 m (P < 0.001). The mean IED identification accuracy was 46.7 and 11.4% for cc and sc, respectively (P < 0.001). Conclusions: The preliminary results reflect VIPER's ability to assess functional visual performance when detecting and identifying signs and IEDs. Furthermore, VIPER is able to detect performance changes with and without correction.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 51%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Clinical Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preliminary evaluation of the VIsion PERformance (VIPER) simulator

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All participants underwent binocular testing with their habitual correction based on a comprehensive eye examination within 1 year of testing. High-contrast visual acuity and smallletter contrast sensitivity (20/25 letter size) were measured binocularly with a retroilluminated Rabin Super Vision Test (Precision Vision) 9 ; large-letter contrast sensitivity (20/700 letter size) was measured with the wall-mounted Pelli-Robson chart. 10 Visual acuity was expressed as log of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) and contrast sensitivity as the log of the inverse of the minimum detectable contrast (logCS).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Milk vs Dark Chocolate Consumption on Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Within 2 Hours

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

chocolate can improve blood flow, mood, and cognition in the short term, but little is known about the possible effects of dark chocolate on visual performance.OBJECTIVE To compare the short-term effects of consumption of dark chocolate with those of milk chocolate on visual acuity and large-and small-letter contrast sensitivity.DESIGN A randomized, single-masked crossover design was used to assess short-term visual performance after consumption of a dark or a milk chocolate bar. Thirty participants without pathologic eye disease each consumed dark and milk chocolate in separate sessions, and within-participant paired comparisons were used to assess outcomes. Testing was conducted at the Rosenberg School of Optometry from June 25 to August 15, 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESVisual acuity (in logMAR units) and large-and small-letter contrast sensitivity (in the log of the inverse of the minimum detectable contrast [logCS units]) were measured 1.75 hours after consumption of dark and milk chocolate bars. RESULTS Among the 30 participants (9 men and 21 women; mean [SD] age, 26 [5] years), small-letter contrast sensitivity was significantly higher after consumption of dark chocolate (mean [SE], 1.45 [0.04] logCS) vs milk chocolate (mean [SE], 1.30 [0.05] logCS; mean improvement, 0.15 logCS [95% CI, 0.08-0.22 logCS]; P < .001). Large-letter contrast sensitivity was slightly higher after consumption of dark chocolate (mean [SE], 2.05 [0.02] logCS) vs milk chocolate (mean [SE], 2.00 [0.02] logCS; mean improvement, 0.05 logCS [95% CI, 0.00-0.10 logCS]; P = .07). Visual acuity improved slightly after consumption of dark chocolate (mean [SE], −0.22 [0.01] logMAR; visual acuity, approximately 20/12) and milk chocolate (mean [SE], −0.18 [0.01] logMAR; visual acuity, approximately 20/15; mean improvement, 0.04 logMAR [95% CI, 0.02-0.06 logMAR]; P = .05). Composite scores combining results from all tests showed significant improvement after consumption of dark compared with milk chocolate (mean improvement, 0.20 log U [95% CI, 0.10-0.30 log U]; P < .001).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Contrast sensitivity and visual acuity were significantly higher 2 hours after consumption of a dark chocolate bar compared with a milk chocolate bar, but the duration of these effects and their influence in real-world performance await further testing.TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03326934

show abstract

“…Other colour vison tests, such as the Cone Contrast Test (CCT) (Innova Systems, innovasystemsusa.com), may provide a potential alternative to the FM‐100 Hue 16 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hue discrimination in jewellery appraisers exceeds normal performance

Lovell

Rabin

2021

Ophthalmic Physiologic Optic

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The FM‐100 Hue test is used for vocational purposes where hue discrimination is of the upmost importance, such as in jewellery appraisals where small errors in hue discrimination can lead to significant differences in gemstone valuation. The purpose of this study was to determine if the cone contrast test (CCT) could predict performance on the FM‐100 Hue, providing a potential alternative test for screening of jewellery appraisers. Methods Members of the National Association of Jewelry Appraisers (NAJA; n = 18, ages 34 to 76 years) requiring colour vision certification with the FM‐100 Hue were invited to participate in a study to assess performance on the Ishihara test, FM‐100 Hue, Lanthony Desaturated D‐15 and the CCT. The FM‐100 Hue test was administered to award or renew NAJA certification, while the CCT was included as a possible alternative certification test. Results Average CCT M and S cone scores were predictive of FM‐100 Hue total error score (TES: F1,16 = 7.77, p < 0.02; r2 = 0.33). The regression equation indicates that a CCT score of <60 is 3SD below the mean TES in our cohort of jewellery appraisers. Seventeen of 18 jewellery appraisers had FM‐100 Hue TES scores significantly below the lower limit for age‐matched normal values, indicating exceptional performance (p < 0.001). Conclusions Results indicate the CCT may be an effective substitute for the FM‐100 Hue to provide certification of jewellery appraisers, but the small sample size warrants additional comparative validation to support sole utilisation of the CCT. It is of interest that this sample of jewellery appraisers showed lower (i.e., better) than normal TES scores despite mitigating senescence factors. It is conceivable that the enhanced jewellery appraisers' hue discrimination reflects perceptual learning, wherein reward‐based repetition on specific tasks can improve performance, even in adulthood beyond critical periods.

show abstract

Beyond 20/20: New Clinical Methods to Quantify Vision Performance

Abstract: The SVT-NVG and CCT provide rapid, sensitive indices of color and spatial vision potentially linkable to real-world operational demands.

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Preliminary evaluation of the VIsion PERformance (VIPER) simulator

Preliminary evaluation of the VIsion PERformance (VIPER) simulator

Effects of Milk vs Dark Chocolate Consumption on Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Within 2 Hours

Hue discrimination in jewellery appraisers exceeds normal performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About