Visual performance of subjects wearing presbyopic contact lenses

Optometry and Vision Science

Volumn 83, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 611-615

  Rajagopalan, Aruna S ^a   Bennett, Edward S ^b   Lakshminarayanan, Vasudevan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI ST LOUIS   (United States)

Author keywords

Contact lenses; Contrast sensitivity; Dim light levels; Glare sensitivity; Low and high contrast acuity; Presbyopia

Indexed keywords

BINOCULARS; ERROR ANALYSIS; FREQUENCIES; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; PATIENT MONITORING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DIM LIGHT LEVELS; GLARE SENSITIVITY; LOW AND HIGH CONTRAST ACUITY; PRESBYOPIA;

CONTACT LENSES;

ADULT; ARTICLE; BAILEY LOVIE CHART; BIFOCAL LENS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTACT LENS; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DEVICE; FEMALE; GLARE; HUMAN; LUMINANCE; MALE; MULTIFOCAL LENS; PRESBYOPIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SPECTACLES; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISION; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY;

ADULT; AGED; CONTACT LENSES; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; DISEASE PROGRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRESBYOPIA; PROGNOSIS; VISION TESTS; VISION, BINOCULAR; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 33747430432     PISSN: 10405488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/01.opx.0000232185.00091.45     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Van Meter WS, Gussler JR, Litteral G. Clinical evaluation of three bifocal contact lenses. CLAO J 1990;16:203-7.
2. Back AP, Holden BA, Hine NA. Correction of presbyopia with contact lenses: comparative success rates with three systems. Optom Vis Sci 1989;66:518-25.
3. Back A, Grant T, Hine N. Comparative visual performance of three presbyopic contact lens corrections. Optom Vis Sci 1992;69:474-80.
4. Hutnik CM, O'Hagan D. Multifocal contact lenses - look again! Can J Ophthalmol 1997;32:201-5.
5. Benjamin WJ, Borish IM. Physiology of aging and its influence on the contact lens prescription. J Am Optom Assoc 1991;62:743-53.
6. Erickson P, Schor C. Visual function with presbyopic contact lens correction. Optom Vis Sci 1990;67:22-8.
7. Bailey IL, Lovie JE. New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1976;53:740-5.
8. Borish IM. Pupil dependency of bifocal contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1988;65:417-23.
9. Regan D, Giaschi DE, Fresco BB. Measurement of glare susceptibility using low-contrast letter charts. Optom Vis Sci 1993;70:969-75.
10. Sheedy JE, Harris MG, Busby L, Chan E, Koga I. Monovision contact lens wear and occupational task performance. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1988;65:14-8.
11. Sheedy JE, Harris MG, Bronge MR, Joe SM, Mook MA. Task and visual performance with concentric bifocal contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1991;68:537-41.
12. Sheedy JE, Harris MG, Poon L, Sakuda T. Task and visual performance with contact lenses and spectacles. Optom Vis Sci 1992;69:337-41.
13. Hong X, Himebaugh N, Thibos LN. On-eye evaluation of optical performance of rigid and soft contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:872-80.
14. Robboy MW, Cox IG, Erickson P. Effects of sighting and sensory dominance on monovision high and low contrast visual acuity. CLAO J 1990;16:299-301.
15. Zandvoort SW, Kok JH, Molenaar H. Good subjective presbyopic correction with newly designed aspheric multifocal contact lens. Int Ophthalmol 1993;17:305-11.
16. McGill E, Ames K, Erickson P, Robboy M. Quality of vision with hydrogel simultaneous vision bifocal contact lenses. ICLC 1987;14:476-82.
17. Loshin DS, Loshin MS. Binocular summation with monovision contact lens correction for presbyopia. ICLC 1982;9:161-5.
18. Collins MJ, Brown B, Bowman KJ. Contrast sensitivity with contact lens corrections for presbyopia. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1989;9:133-8.