Comparison of contrast sensitivity in different soft contact lenses and spectacles

CLAO Journal

Volumn 25, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 48-51

  Wachler, Brian S Boxer ^a   Phillips, Cathy L ^b   Schanzlin, David J ^c   Krueger, Ronald R ^b  

^a JULES STEIN EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b Anheuser Busch Eye Institute at St Louis University   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SAN DIEGO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISPOSABLE EQUIPMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYDROGEL; HYDROPHILIC CONTACT LENS; MALE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SOFT CONTACT LENS; SPATIAL FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATION; SPECTACLES; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 0002635070     PISSN: 07338902     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Wolkstein M, Atkin A, Bodis-Wollner I: Contrast sensitivity in retinal disease. Ophthalmology 1980;87:1140-1149.
2. Sekuler R, Owsley C, Berenberg R: Contrast sensitivity during provoked visual impairment in multiple sclerosis. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1986;6:229-232
3. Cox I, Holden BA: Soft contact lens-induced longitudinal spherical aberration and its effect on contrast sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci 1990;67:679-683.
4. Kirkpatrick DL, Roggenkamp JR: Effects of soft contact lenses on contrast sensitivity. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1985;62:407-412.
5. Mitra S, Lamberts DW: Contrast sensitivity in soft lens wearers. Contact Intraocul Lens Med J 1981;7:315-322.
6. Woo G, Hess R: Contrast sensitivity function and soft contact lenses. Int Contact Lens Clin 1979;6:171-176.
7. Applegate RA, Massof RW: Changes in the contrast sensitivity function induced by contact lens wear. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1975;52: 840-846.
8. Boxer Wachler BS, Krueger RR: Normalized contrast sensitivity values. J Refract Surg 1998;14:463-466.
9. Dutt S, Steinert RF, Raizman MB, et al: One-year results of excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy for low to moderate myopia. Arch Ophthalmolol 1994;112:1427-1436.
10. Ginsburg AP: The evaluation of contact lenses and refractive surgery using contrast sensitivity. In: Dabezies OH, Cavanaugh HD, Farris RL, Lemp MA, editors. The CLAO Guide to Basic Science and Clinical Practice. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1938:56.1-56.17.
11. Tomlinson A, Mann G: An analysis of visual performance with soft contact lens and spectacle correction. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1985;5:53-57.
12. Grobe GL, Valint PL, Ammon DM: Surface chemical structure for soft contact lenses as a function of polymer processing. Polym Mater Sci Eng 1993; 69:467.
13. Bernstein IH, Brodrick J: Contrast sensitivities through spectacles and soft contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1981;58:309-313.
14. Hill JF: Clinical comparison of the (Polymacon) spin-cast hydrogel contact lens to the (Polymacon) lathe-cut hydrogel contact lens. Am J Optom Physiol Opt, 1980;57:523-527.
15. Hart DE, DePaolis M, Ratner BD, et al: Surface analysis of hydrogel contact lenses by ESCA. CLAO J 1993;19:169-173.
16. Llabres CM, Antunez DM: Evaluating protein deposits on preferences and CSI lenses. Spectrum 1994:23-29.
17. Guillon M, Schock SE: Soft contact lens visual performance: a multicenter study. Optom Vis Sci 1991;68:96-103.
18. Grey CP: Changes in contrast sensitivity when wearing low, medium, and high water content soft lenses. J Br Contact Lens Assoc 1986;9:21-25.
19. Grey CP: Changes in contrast sensitivity during the first hour of soft lens wear. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1986;63:702-707.
20. Riddler WH, Tomlinson A: Blink-induced, temporal variations in contrast sensitivity. Int Contact Lens Clin 1991;18:231-237.
21. Evans DW, Ginsburg AP: Contrast sensitivity predicts age-related differences in highway-sign discriminability. Human Fac 1985;27:637-642.