Brightness acuity test and outdoor visual acuity in cataract patients

Holladay, Jack T.; Prager, Thomas C.; Trujillo, Jorge; Ruiz, Richard

doi:10.1016/s0886-3350(87)80016-0

Cited by 84 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the first methods proposed was the measurement of the contrast sensitivity function with and without a glare source 2 . In contrast, the brightness acuity test (BAT) considered the evaluation of visual acuity 3 . Other psychophysical testing tools have also been developed recently to evaluate straylight.…”

Section: Intraocular Scattering Is An Important Cause Of Visual Functmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double-pass technique and compensation-comparison method in eyes with cataract

Martínez-Roda¹,

Vilaseca²,

Ondategui³

et al. 2016

Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Intraocular Scattering Is An Important Cause Of Visual Functmentioning

confidence: 99%

Double-pass technique and compensation-comparison method in eyes with cataract

Martínez-Roda¹,

Vilaseca²,

Ondategui³

et al. 2016

Journal of Cataract and Refractive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…20 (5) Glare Disability (GD). This was assessed using the Brightness Acuity Tester (BAT) 21 (Marco, Florida, USA). VA was measured in the right and left eyes without and with the BAT at its brightest setting (400 ft. Lamberts, equivalent to bright sunlight on a white sand beach).…”

Section: Objective Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prospective randomised double-masked trial of bilateral multifocal, bifocal or monofocal intraocular lenses

Leyland

Langan

Goolfee

et al. 2002

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To evaluate the functional effect of bilateral implantation of two different multifocal intraocular lenses (IOL) compared with the standard monofocal IOL. Methods Sixty-nine patients were recruited into a prospective, double-masked, randomised, controlled trial at a single hospital in the United Kingdom. Sixty completed follow-up; 16 implanted with monofocal IOLs, 29 with AMO 'ARRAY' multifocal IOLs and 15 with Storz 'TRUEVISTA' bifocal IOLs. Phacoemulsification and IOL implantation was performed to a standardised technique in both eyes within a 2-month period. The main outcome measures were distance and near visual acuity, depth of field and validated assessment of subjective function (TyPE questionnaire). Results Unaided distance acuity was good, and equivalent across the three groups. Corrected distance acuity was significantly lower in the bifocal group. Patients with multifocal and bifocal IOLs could read smaller absolute print size than those in the monofocal group (P = 0.05), but at a closer reading distance such that mean unaided near acuity was equal in the three groups. Corrected near acuity was significantly higher in the monofocal control group (P Ͻ 0.05). Depth of field was increased in multifocal (P = 0.06) and bifocal (P = 0.004) groups. Overall visual satisfaction was equal in the three groups, while near visual satisfaction was higher in the multifocal group than the monofocal (P = 0.04). Spectacle independence was not seen in the monofocal group, but was achieved in 28% of multifocal IOL patients and 33% of bifocal patients (P Ͻ 0.001). Adverse symptoms such as glare and haloes were significantly more bothersome with multifocal (not bifocal) IOLs than monofocals (P = 0.01). Conclusions Multifocal and bifocal IOLs improved unaided near vision performance, with around one in three patients becoming spectacle-independent. The main adverse effect was an increased incidence of subjective glare and haloes in the multifocal IOL group.

show abstract

“…Since the light scattering mechanism is altered according to the light source position, this scattering effect can be considerably reduced by moving the light source to further angles (larger angle from the observer's line of sight) or by lowering the light intensity itself. The quantitative explanation of this phenomenon can be found in earlier studies (e.g., Holladay, 1926).…”

Section: Mechanism Of Scattering Light In Our Eyesmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…The Brightness Acuity Tester (BAT) (Holladay et al, 1987): The tester is a hemispherical bowl with controlled glare source held close to the observer's eye.…”

Section: Disability Glarementioning

confidence: 99%

Trait-based individual differences on discomfort glare rating responses and related visual contrast sensitivity

Lockhart¹,

Mekaroonreung²

2004

PsycEXTRA Dataset

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and Related Visual Contrast Sensitivity Haruetai Mekaroonreung (ABSTRACT) This research was designed to investigate the relationship between Trait-based Individual differences (neuroticism and extraversion) and glare subjective responses as well as the actual contrast sensitivity when exposed to the same manipulated glare condition. In addition, the relationship between the glare subjective responses and actual contrast sensitivity was investigated. To examine the trait-based individual differences, the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) was used while the subjective glare experience was examined utilizing modified glare discomfort rating scale. The visual performance was measured through the contrast sensitivity level using adjustable contrast level of the Landolt's C target. This investigation compared 36 individuals (9 high neuroticism scorers, 9 low neuroticism scorers, 9 high extraversion scorers, and 9 low extraversion scorers) on subjective discomfort glare rating responses and visual contrast sensitivity. The study is directed toward improving our understanding of influencing factors on the experience of discomfort glare, which may eventually be applied to the design of glare measurement methods, and toward training and selection of drivers and workers who may work under conditions of glare. Results indicated significant effect of extraversion trait on rating response while insignificant effect on visual related performance was found. The relationships between rating response and visual performance were also found to be quite low in this study. In conclusion, the expected model was supported but only on the extraversion trait. RationaleFeelings of discomfort glare have been widely assessed with rating scales for various purposes, especially in the design of lighting configurations such as street lighting and visual display terminal (VDT) systems. However, consensus is lacking among researchers in terms of discomfort glare assessment methods (Gellatly and Weintraub, 1990;Lennie & Van Hemel, 2002;Olson & Sivak, 1984;Sivak & Flannagan, 1994). Although the between-subject variations in rating scores are repeatedly reported to be quite high, the subjective glare rating has been the method used for many years.Several subjective rating scales have been proposed since the 1960s (De Boer, 1967a).Among these rating scales, the 9 point De Boer scale is most often used in the field of automotive and public lighting systems (Theeuwes, 2002) while some other scales such as Visual Analog Scale (VAS) are used less frequently.As suggested by few researchers (Berman et al., 1994;Theeuwes, 2002), one underlying reason for the large variability of this subjective response could be the result of differences in the observers' trait rather than visual impairment. For example, people with dispositions related to worry or anxiety may have a perceived criterion for discomfort that is much lower than those who have dispositions that are less anxiety or worry prone. As a result, the worried people could exhibit more...

show abstract

Brightness acuity test and outdoor visual acuity in cataract patients

Cited by 84 publications

References 3 publications

Double-pass technique and compensation-comparison method in eyes with cataract

Double-pass technique and compensation-comparison method in eyes with cataract

Prospective randomised double-masked trial of bilateral multifocal, bifocal or monofocal intraocular lenses

Trait-based individual differences on discomfort glare rating responses and related visual contrast sensitivity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About