<strong>ARVO</strong> 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts by Scientific Section/Group – <strong>Visual</strong> <strong>Psychophysics</strong> / <strong>Physiological</strong> <strong>Optics</strong>distance vision. Mean MMSE was 24.9 ± 4.0 points (range 15-30).Good near visual acuity (J3 or lower) was found to be associated withhigh MMSE score (>24) (OR=3.74, 95% CI=1.86-7.52, p
<strong>ARVO</strong> 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts by Scientific Section/Group – <strong>Visual</strong> <strong>Psychophysics</strong> / <strong>Physiological</strong> <strong>Optics</strong>Mary Lou Jackson 1 , Jennifer Wallis 1 , Paul Wicks 2 , Peter Bex 1 .1 Harvard Dept of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye & EarInfirmary, Boston, MA; 2 PatientsLikeMe Research, Boston, MA.Purpose: To assess contrast sensitivity (CS) and visual hallucinations(VH) in individuals with Parkinson’s disease. Patients withParkinson’s disease who experience hallucinations may showimpaired CS, a relationship previously reported in people with lowvision who experience Charles Bonnet Syndrome.Methods: A total of 964 members of the online patient community‘PatientsLikeMe’ were invited via email to participate in this study.269 members completed the study; 153 of this group were patientswith Parkinson's disease, 116 were controls (other disorders).Participants completed, online, a modified version of the Universityof Miami Parkinson’s Disease Hallucinations Questionnaire (UM-PDHQ) and a test of CS similar to the Pelli Robson chart.Results: Results from the UM-PDHQ showed that 18% of people inthe Parkinson’s group currently experienced VH versus 9% in thecontrol group. Hallucinations reported by participants withParkinson’s disease included mice, cats, people, distorted faces,furniture or complex patterns.Both groups, participants with Parkinson’s disease (M: 1.85, SD: .36)and the control group (M: 1.75, SD: .35) showed relatively good CSas measured with the online letter test (F(1, 269)= 1.49, p=.22).Individuals with current VH showed relatively low CS scores (M:1.69, SD: .36) compared to individuals who had never had VH(M:1.81, SD: .35), or had previously (M: 1.80, SD: .37) experiencedVH. This difference, however, did not reach statistical significance(F(2, 263)= 1.55, p= .22). CS differences in the Parkinson’s diseasegroup between those with VH (M: 1.69, SD: .34) and those with nocurrent VH (never VH - M: 1.77, SD: .34, VH but not in past month -M: 1.74, SD: .40) were small.Conclusions: More patients with Parkinson’s disease reported visualhallucinations than the control group, however, both groups showedrelatively good CS.Interestingly, participants who reported VH, irrespective of diseasestatus, showed relatively low CS compared to participants who didnot. This difference is of clinical interest.Contacting subjects via an online health social network is a novelmethod of conducting vision research that allows large numbers ofindividuals to be contacted quickly, including those in remotecommunities.Commercial Relationships: Mary Lou Jackson, None; JenniferWallis, None; Paul Wicks, PatientsLikeMe (E), Abbott (F), Acorda(F), Avanir (F), Biogen (F), Genzyme (F), Johnson & Johnson (F),Merck (F), Novartis (F), Sanofi (F), UCB (F), PatientsLikeMe (I);Peter Bex, Adaptive Sensory Technology, LLC (S), RapidAssessment of <strong>Visual</strong> Sensitivity (P)Program Number: 1529 Poster Board Number: B0315Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMContrast acuity in Lewy Body DiseaseHelene Kergoat 1, 2 , Guillaume Carcenac 1 , Mireille Parent 1 . 1 Schoolof Optometry, University of Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada;2 Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal, Montreal, QC,Canada.Purpose: Lewy Body Disease (LBD) is a neurodegenerative diseaseaffecting older individuals, that is characterized by visualhallucinations, fluctuations in cognition and parkinsonism. It isassociated with deficits in both the dopaminergic and cholinergicsystems. These neurotransmitters play a role in the processing ofvisual information. Therefore, the present study was undertaken toverify if contrast acuity was altered in LBD.Methods: Twelve participants with a confirmed diagnosis of LBD(Avg: 76.0 yrs ± SD 6.1) and 12 age-matched controls (Avg: 75.1 yrs± SD 6.5) were recruited for the study. All subjects received acomplete eye examination prior to testing to ensure that they had avisual acuity better than 20/30 and good ocular health. The eye withbest corrected visual acuity was chosen for testing. Contrastsensitivity and contrast acuity were measured at an 8 foot distancewith a retroilluminated CSV-1000 system (VectorVision) having amean luminance of 85 cd/m2. Contrast sensitivity was measured withthe CSV-1000E chart test face for 4 spatial frequencies: 3, 6, 12 and18 cycles per degree (cpd). Contrast acuity was measured with theCSV-1000CVA20/30 chart test face for 3 contrast levels: 100%, 9%and 6%. Statistics consisted of ANOVAs for an alpha level of 0.05.Results: Our results indicated that the contrast sensitivity wassignificantly reduced in subjects with LBD for the 3, 12 and 18 cpdgratings (p< 0.01). Contrast acuity was also reduced in subjects withLBD, for all contrast levels tested (p< 0.01).Conclusions: These results show that LBD is associated with areduction in contrast acuity for both gratings and letters. Thesefindings may be related to dopaminergic/cholinergic deficits, or tostructural anomalies known to occur in the retina of individuals withLBD.Commercial Relationships: Helene Kergoat, None; GuillaumeCarcenac, None; Mireille Parent, NoneSupport: Fondation Caroline-Durand, COETF246 Cone Photoreceptors in Aging and DiseaseMonday, May 06, 2013 11:00 AM-12:45 PMTCC LL 4/5 Paper SessionProgram #/Board # Range: 1740-1746Organizing Section: <strong>Visual</strong> <strong>Psychophysics</strong> / <strong>Physiological</strong> <strong>Optics</strong>Program Number: 1740Presentation Time: 11:00 AM - 11:15 AMCone Distribution Variations for Young Healthy Subjects vs.Older SubjectsAnn E. Elsner 1 , Toco Y. Chui 1 , Lei Feng 1, 2 , Colleen M. McIntyre 1 ,Hongxin Song 1, 3 , Thomas Gast 1 , Stephen A. Burns 1 . 1 Optometry,Indiana University, Bloomington, IN; 2 Second Affiliated Hospital,College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Zhejiang, China; 3 Centerfor <strong>Visual</strong> Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.Purpose: To compare the individual differences in cone distributionwith age, minimizing the effects of eye length and retinal disease. Todistinguish between cone density variations related to fovealspecialization, as opposed to more global factors or aging.Methods: Subjects who had a normal fundus and axial length < 26mm were divided into 2 groups, with age = 18 - 35 yr for the 47subjects in the younger group and 50 - 70 yr for the 17 subjects in theolder group. Cone densities were quantified using a secondgeneration Adaptive <strong>Optics</strong> Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope. Coneswere imaged using 820 to 840 nm +/- 20 nm at approximately 100microwatts, illuminating 530 x 550 microns of the retina. Samplescollected in a + shape around the fovea were montaged. Cones werecounted at a nominal 270, 630, 1480, and 2070 microns from thefoveal center using custom software (Matlab, Mathworks). To reduceshadowing from large retinal vessels, temporal meridian data wereused. Axial length measurements were used to correct the conesampling positions and retinal area in mm2 (IOL Master, ZeissMeditec). A subset of data were refit to a 2 parameter exponentialmodel.Results: Cone density was greater on average for the younger group,but had substantial variability and overlap with the older group. Therefit data from 36 younger subjects matched the 2 parameter©2013, Copyright by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc., all rights reserved. Go to iovs.org to access the version of record. For permissionto reproduce any abstract, contact the <strong>ARVO</strong> Office at arvo@arvo.org.
Change language