Clinical assessment of two new contrast sensitivity charts

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 91, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 749-752

  Thayaparan, Kavitha ^a   Crossland, Michael D ^a,b   Rubin, Gary S ^b  

^a MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AMBLYOPIA; ARTICLE; CATARACT; CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORNEA DISEASE; GLAUCOMA; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETINA MACULOPATHY; RETINITIS PIGMENTOSA; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY;

ADULT; AGED; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; VISION TESTS; VISION, LOW; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 34249774573     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2006.109280     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Wood JM. How do visual status and age impact on driving performance as measured on a closed circuit driving track? Ophthal Physiol Opt 1999;19:34.
2. Wood JM. Age and visual impairment decrease driving performance as measured on a closed-road circuit. Hum Factors 2002;44:482-94.
3. Whittaker SG, Lovie-Kitchen J. Visual requirements for reading. Optom Vis Sci 1993;70:54-65.
4. Rubin GS, Legge GE. Psychophysics of reading. VI - The role of contrast in low vision. Vision Res 1989;29:79-91.
5. Leat SJ, Woo GC. The validity of current clinical tests of contrast sensitivity and their ability to predict reading speed in low vision. Eye 1997;11:893-9.
6. West SK, Rubin GS, Broman AT, et al. How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? The SEE project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Arch Ophthalmol 2002;120:774-80.
7. Marron JA, Bailey IL. Visual factors and orientation mobility performance. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1982;59:413-23.
8. Turano KA, Broman AT, Bandeen-Roche K, et al. Association of visual field loss and mobility performance in older adults: Salisbury Eye Evaluation Study. Optom Vis Sci 2004;81:298-307.
9. Klein BE, Klein R, Lee KE, et al. Performance-based and self-assessed measures of visual function as related to history of falls, fractures and measured gait time. The Beaver Dam Eye Study. Ophthalmology 1998;105:160-4.
10. Hawkins AS, Szlyk JP, Ardickas Z, et al. Comparison of contrast sensitivity, visual acuity and Humphrey visual field testing in patients with glaucoma. J Glaucoma 2003;12:134-8.
11. Elliott DB, Hurst MA. Simple clinical techniques to evaluate visual function in patients with early cataracts. Optom Vis Sci 1990;67:822-5.
12. Trobe JD, Beck RW, Moke PS, et al. Contrast sensitivity and other vision tests in the optic neuritis treatment trial. Am J Ophthalmol 1996;121:547-53.
13. Yamane N, Miyata K, Samejima, et al. Ocular higher-order aberrations and contrast sensitivity after conventional laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004;45:3986-90.
14. Crossland MD. The role of contrast sensitivity measurement in patients with low vision. Optom Pract 2004;5:105-14.
15. Latham KJC. Who uses contrast sensitivity in optometric practice? Ophthal Physiol Opt 1998;18:S2-13.
16. Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vis Sci 1988;2:187-99.
17. Arditi A. Improving the design of the letter contrast sensitivity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:2225-9.
18. Dougherty BE, Flom RE, Bullimore MA. An evaluation of the Mars letter contrast sensitivity test. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82:970-5.
19. Haymes S, Roberts K, Cruess A, et al. The letter contrast sensitivity test: clinical evaluation of a new design. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:1-8.
20. Elliott DB. Clinical procedures in primary eye care. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997.
21. Elliott DB, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL. Improving the reliability of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity. Clin Vis Sci 1991;6:471-5.
22. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;8476:307- 10.
23. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2001.
24. Elliott DB, Sanderson K, Conkey A. The reliability of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity chart. Ophthal Physiol Opt 1990;10:21-4.
25. Lovie-Kitchin JE, Brown B. Repeatability and intercorrelations of standard vision tests as a function of age. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:412-20.
26. Elliott DB, Bullimore MA. Assessing the reliability, discriminative ability and validity of disability glare tests. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:108-19.
27. Strasburger H, Wustenberg T, Jancke L. Calibrated LCD/TFT stimulus presentation for visual psychophysics in fMRI. J Neurosci Methods 2002;121:103-10.