Vanishing Optotype acuity: Repeatability and effect of the number of alternatives

Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 17-22

  Shah, Nilpa ^a   Dakin, Steven C ^a   Redmond, Tony ^a   Anderson, Roger S ^a,b  

^a MOORFIELDS EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Alternative forced choice; High pass letters; Vanishing Optotypes; Variability; Visual acuity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PERCEPTIVE THRESHOLD; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REPRODUCIBILITY; VISION TEST; VISUAL ACUITY;

DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; MALE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISION TESTS; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 78650051251     PISSN: 02755408     EISSN: 14751313     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2010.00806.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Ferris FL III & Bailey I. Standardizing the measurement of visual acuity for clinical research studies: Guidelines from the Eye Care Technology Forum. Ophthalmology 1996; 103: 181-182.
2. Raasch TW, Bailey IL & Bullimore MA. Repeatability of visual acuity measurement. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75: 342-348.
3. Bailey IL & Lovie JE. New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1976; 53: 740-745.
4. McGraw P, Winn B & Whitaker D. Reliability of the Snellen chart. BMJ 1995; 310: 1481-1482.
5. Elliott DB & Sheridan M. The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988; 8: 397-401.
6. Lovie-Kitchin JE. Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1988; 8: 363-370.
7. Reeves BC, Wood JM & Hill AR. Vistech VCTS 6500 charts - within- and between-session reliability. Optom Vis Sci 1991; 68: 728-737.
8. Brown B & Lovie-Kitchin J. Repeated visual acuity measurement: establishing the patient's own criterion for change. Optom Vis Sci 1993; 70: 45-53.
9. Vanden Bosch ME & Wall M. Visual acuity scored by the letter-by-letter or probit methods has lower retest variability than the line assignment method. Eye 1997; 11: 411-417.
10. Arditi A & Cagenello R. On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993; 34: 120-129.
11. Bailey IL, Bullimore MA, Raasch TW & Taylor HR. Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991; 32: 422-432.
12. Hazel CA & Elliott DB. The dependency of logMAR visual acuity measurements on chart design and scoring rule. Optom Vis Sci 2002; 79: 788-792.
13. Rosser DA, Cousens SN, Murdoch IE, Fitzke FW & Laidlaw DA. How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003; 44: 3278-3281.
14. Rosser DA, Murdoch IE & Cousens SN. The effect of optical defocus on the test-retest variability of visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2004; 45: 1076-1079.
15. Patel PJ, Chen FK, Rubin GS & Tufail A. Intersession repeatability of visual acuity scores in age-related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 4347-4352.
16. Carkeet A. Modeling logMAR visual acuity scores: effects of termination rules and alternative forced-choice options. Optom Vis Sci 2001; 78: 529-538.
17. Sloan LL. Measurement of visual acuity; a critical review. AMA Arch Ophthalmol 1951; 45: 704-725.
18. Reich LN & Bedell HE. Relative legibility and confusions of letter acuity targets in the peripheral and central retina. Optom Vis Sci 2000; 77: 270-275.
19. Alexander KR, Xie W & Derlacki DJ. Spatial-frequency characteristics of letter identification. J Opt Soc Am A 1994; 11: 2375-2382.
20. Anderson RS & Thibos LN. Relationship between acuity for gratings and for tumbling-E letters in peripheral vision. J Opt Soc Am A 1996; 16: 2321-2333.
21. Anderson RS & Thibos LN. The filtered Fourier difference spectrum predicts psychophysical letter discrimination in the peripheral retina. Spat Vis 2004; 17: 5-15.
22. Bondarko VM & Danilova MV. What spatial frequency do we use to detect the orientation of a Landolt C? Vision Res 1997; 37: 2153-2156.
23. Chung ST, Legge GE & Tjan BS. Spatial-frequency characteristics of letter identification in central and peripheral vision. Vision Res 2002; 42: 2137-2152.
24. Gervais MJ, Harvey LO Jr & Roberts JO. Identification confusions among letters of the alphabet. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1984; 10: 655-666.
25. Parish DH & Sperling G. Object spatial frequencies, retinal spatial frequencies, noise, and the efficiency of letter discrimination. Vision Res 1991; 31: 1399-1415.
26. Anderson RS & Thibos LN. Sampling limits and critical bandwidth for letter discrimination in peripheral vision. J Opt Soc Am A 1999; 16: 2334-2342.
27. Howland B, Ginsburg A & Campbell F. High-pass spatial frequency letters as clinical optotypes. Vision Res 1978; 18: 1063-1066.
28. Anderson RS & Ennis FA. Foveal and peripheral thresholds for detection and resolution of vanishing optotype tumbling E's. Vision Res 1999; 39: 4141-4144.
29. Frisen L. High-pass resolution targets in peripheral vision. Ophthalmology 1987; 94: 1104-1108.
30. Adoh TO & Woodhouse JM. The Cardiff acuity test used for measuring visual acuity development in toddlers. Vision Res 1994; 34: 555-560.
31. Johansen A, White S & Waraisch P. Screening for visual impairment in older people: validation of the Cardiff Acuity Test. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2003; 36: 289-293.
32. Watson AB & Pelli DG. QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept Psychophys 1983; 33: 113-120.
33. Majaj NJ, Pelli DG, Kurshan P & Palomares M. The role of spatial frequency channels in letter identification. Vision Res 2002; 42: 165-1184.
34. Koskin SA, Boiko EV, Sobolev AF & Shelepin YE. Mechanisms of recognition of the outlines of "vanishing" optotypes. Neurosci Behav Physiol 2007; 37: 59-65.