Visual Psychophysics / Physiological Optics - ARVO

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts by Scientific Section/Group – Visual Psychophysics / Physiological OpticsConclusions: Amblyopia can be characterized by pronounceddeficits in contrast sensitivity, spatial distortion, and binocularinteraction suggesting a higher contrast requirement for theamblyopic compared to the fellow eye. Despite the short testing time,our novel methods are as effective as conventional laboratoryassessments for quantifying the core deficits in amblyopia.Commercial Relationships: MiYoung Kwon, None; Luis A.Lesmes, Adaptive Sensory Technology (S), 7938538 (P); AlexandraMiller, None; Melanie Kazlas, None; Michael Dorr, AdaptiveSensory Technology, LLC (S), Rapid Measurement of VisualSensitivity (P); David G. Hunter, REBIScan, Inc (I), BostonChildren's Hospital (P), Johns Hopkins University (P); Zhong-LinLu, US Patent 7,938,538 (P); Peter Bex, Adaptive SensoryTechnology, LLC (S), Rapid Assessment of Visual Sensitivity (P)Support: NIH Grant R01 EY021553Program Number: 2664Presentation Time: 10:00 AM - 10:15 AMBinocular Visual Acuity with Combined Correction of Sphericaland Longitudinal Chromatic AberrationsChristina Schwarz, Silvestre Manzanera, Pedro M. Prieto, PabloArtal. Laboratorio de Optica, Universidad de Murcia, Murcia, Spain.Purpose: A previous study (Artal et al., Optics Express 2010)showed that monocular visual acuity (VA) improved by correctingspherical aberration (SA) and longitudinal chromatic aberration(LCA). However, the effect of their combined correction onbinocular visual performance has not been investigated yet. Here, wemeasured both monocular and binocular VA when correcting SA andLCA separately or in combination.Methods: We used a binocular adaptive optics visual analyzer tomeasure binocular and monocular VA at an intermediate contrast ofletters (30%). The instrument (Schwarz et al., Optics Letters, 2011)allows for modifying the magnitude and phase of the eye’s complexpupil function. It incorporates two liquid-crystal spatial lightmodulators for both wavefront shaping and to create the artificialpupil. A micro-display presents letters through the controlled eye’soptics to measure monocular and binocular VA for 4 different cases:1) natural conditions (LCA and SA present), 2) LCA removed, 3) SAcorrected, 4) LCA removed and SA corrected. In the cases where SAis present, the average SA value found in pseudophakic patients wasinduced (0.149µm for a 4.8mm pupil). LCA was removed by usingmonochromatic (532nm) instead of polychromatic light. The threesubjects that took part in this study had also participated in theprevious.Results: The main tendencies of the previous monocular study werereproduced, although a different instrument was used and thetechnique to correct for LCA was different. Average monocular VAincreased gradually form condition 1) 0.68±0.05; 2) 0.75±0.05; 3)0.82±0.06 and 4) 1.2±0.2. Average binocular VA for the threesubjects increased from 0.80±0.04 for the case when LCA and SAwere present to 1.2±0.1 for the case when LCA and SA werecorrected. The average binocular summation ratio ranged between1.0±0.2 and 1.4±0.2, being the smallest in the all-corrected case.Conclusions: We studied how binocular VA is affected by correctinglongitudinal chromatic aberration and spherical aberration incombination. The best performance was attained binocularly whenboth aberrations were removed. This result may indicates thatbilateral implantation of IOLs correcting both SA and LCA couldfurther improve binocular spatial vision.Commercial Relationships: Christina Schwarz, AMO (F);Silvestre Manzanera, AMO (F), CIBA Vision (F), CALHOUN (F),VOPTICA (I); Pedro M. Prieto, AMO (F), AcuFocus (F), VopticaSL (I), Voptica SL (P); Pablo Artal, AMO (C), Voptica SL (P),Voptica SL (I), AMO (F), Calhoun Vision (F), Calhoun Vision (C),AcuFocus (C)Support: Ministerio de Ciencia e Inovación, Spain, FIS2010-14926and CSD2007-00013; Fundación Seneca, Región de Murcia, Spain4524/GERM/06; AMO313 Low Vision RehabilitationTuesday, May 07, 2013 8:30 AM-10:15 AMExhibit Hall Poster SessionProgram #/Board # Range: 2747-2784/B0001-B0038Organizing Section: Visual Psychophysics / Physiological OpticsProgram Number: 2747 Poster Board Number: B0001Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMMeasuring reading speed: a comparison of reading paragraphsand single sentencesSusanne Trauzettel-Klosinski, Elke K. Altpeter, Tobias Marx, NhungNguyen. Centre for Ophthalmology, University of Tuebingen,Tuebingen, Germany.Purpose: For measuring reading speed, the use of standardized textsis crucial 2. Single sentences (MN-Read, Radner) are well suited forassessing critical print size. We developed paragraphs (InternationalReading Speed Texts IReST 2) for measuring reading speed, whichshowed a high agreement within and between languages (17languages, linguistically adapted). We hypothesize that paragraphsare preferable to single sentences for more precise speedmeasurement by stopwatch.Methods: Reading speeds during reading standardized paragraphs oftext ( IReST, German version, texts 3,6,10; 132 words, SD 3.2) werecompared with standardized single sentences (Radner, Germanversion, texts 1-3; 14 words each). 30 normally sighted elderly nativeGerman speakers (mean age = 64 years, SD 7 years) read the textsaloud in random order. Reading time was measured by stop watchand reading speed was calculated in correctly read words/minute(wpm).Results: Mean reading speed did not show a relevant differencebetween IReST (167 wpm, SD 30.3) and Radner (170 wpm, SD30.2), (highest mean difference: 7 WPM), when reading speeds of thetotal cohort were compared. However, individual variation duringreading 3 texts of each type showed markedly higher standarddeviations for the Radner texts (SD 18.9) than for the IReST texts(SD 5.2). A clinically relevant difference was defined as > 10 wpm 2.Conclusions: For group comparisons, the kind and length of text(IReST or Radner) did not have a relevant influence on readingspeed. For intra-individual measurement of reading speed, IReSTtexts showed lower variation between the texts. For higher accuracywe recommend to use them for repeated measurements, especially formonitoring the course of a reading disorder and for assessing effectsof interventions.References1 Radner W et al (2002) Graefe`s Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 240:461-462 Trauzettel-Klosinski S, Dietz K and the IReST Study Group (2012)IOVS 53:5452-5461Commercial Relationships: Susanne Trauzettel-Klosinski, None;Elke K. Altpeter, None; Tobias Marx, None; Nhung Nguyen,NoneProgram Number: 2748 Poster Board Number: B0002Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMProperties of the Dutch Reading Charts©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 ARVO Office at arvo@arvo.org.
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts by Scientific Section/Group – Visual Psychophysics / Physiological OpticsGer V. Van Rens, Tamara Verkerk Brussee, Edwin Klerkx, Ruth V.Nispen. Ophthalmology, Free Univ Amsterdam Medical Ctr,Amsterdam, Netherlands.Purpose: To investigate some measurement properties of Dutchreading charts.Methods: 71 participants (mean age: 55 +/- 19.7 years) with normalvision read 5 reading charts available in the Dutch language(“Nederlanders”; LEO; IReST, Radner and Colenbrander). Allsentences and texts were printed at the same size and characters andwere read out loud and timed with a stopwatch. In order to comparecharts, the main outcomes were reading speed in syllables andcharacters per minute (corrected for reading mistakes) and the meannumber of mistakes per character.Results: The corrected reading speed in syllables per minute were inascending order of chartsNederlanders 237/min, Colenbrander 246/min, Leo 269/min, IReST278/min and Radner 299/min. The corrected reading speed incharacters per minute gave the same order of charts Nederlanders713/min, Colenbrander 814/min, Leo 823/min, IReST 823/min andRadner 923/min.The number of mistakes made in the reading charts per characterwere in descending order Nederlanders, Colenbrander, IReST, Leoand Radner. A one tailed Pearson correlation of the number ofmistakes per character and reading speed per character revealed asignificant correlation for the reading charts that are based on longertexts, 0.013 in Nederlanders and 0.008 in IReST. No significantcorrelation was found in the other three reading charts that are basedon separate sentences.The range of mistakes for the three reading charts with the highestreading speeds was significantly lower than that of the Colenbranderand Nederlanders. The reading speeds decreased from younger toolder age categories, aged 18-35 years (n=19) , 36-59 years (n=18)and 60-86 years (n=34). This was also true for the number ofmistakes that were made.Conclusions: Archaic language may have led to more mistakes in theNederlanders chart. The 5 Dutch reading charts revealed cleardifferences in reading speed and difficulty (number of mistakes).These findings have consequences for daily practice and for thepossibility to compare scientific outcomes. In the near future, we willalso study the charts with logarithmic progression of character size ina population of visually impaired participants.Commercial Relationships: Ger V. Van Rens, None; TamaraVerkerk Brussee, None; Edwin Klerkx, None; Ruth V. Nispen,NoneProgram Number: 2749 Poster Board Number: B0003Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMiPad vs Closed Circuit Television Low Vision Reading Rates andPreferencesAlex Zemke 1, 2 , Danielle Irvine 1, 2 , John Coalter 1 , Walter M. Jay 3 .1 Spectrios Institute for Low Vision, Wheaton, IL; 2 The ChicagoLighthouse for People Who are Blind or Visually Impaired, Chicago,IL; 3 Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, IL.Purpose: Accessibility features of tablets such as the Apple iPadhave revolutionized reading rehabilitation for low vision patients.These features include system wide zoom and high reversiblecontrast. We compared subjective preference as well as reading rateson the Apple iPad and a closed circuit television (CCTV).Methods: After IRB approval, fourteen low vision patients, 18 yearsand older, were recruited with visual acuity ranging from 20/50 to20/200 and minimal prior experience with an iPad or CCTV.Objective data collection involved calculating reading rates from anewspaper article and a book. Patients read both media for twominutes on each device at their preferred zoom, and a third time onthe CCTV with the zoom matched to the iPad’s angle of resolution.Physical copies were provided to be used on the 24 inch OptelecClearview CCTV and electronic copies were acquired for the thirdgeneration iPad. Upon conclusion of the reading assignments,patients were surveyed with a questionnaire concerning subjectivecomfort, performance and preference. Paired t-test with Bonferroniadjustment was used to compare reading rates. A chi squared analysiswas used for preference responses.Results: The mean age of the subjects was 62.7 (Std Dev = 13.4)years and the range was 35 to 91. There were 9 different diagnoses,with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (5) and glaucoma (2) being themost common. The mean acuity was 20/108 and the range was 20/50to 20/200. Twelve of 14 subjects (85.7%) chose the iPad for overallreading preference (mean age 59.3, mean acuity 20/110). The othertwo subjects preferred the CCTV (mean age 83.5, mean acuity20/100). Faster reading rates of the newspaper with the CCTV at boththe patient's preferred zoom and constant angle of resolution to theiPad were statistically significant (p = 0.0047 and 0.0080respectively), while there was no statistical significance between theCCTV and iPad reading rates with the book.Conclusions: Despite equal or slower reading rates with the iPad,patients' subjective preference was in favor of the iPad. Patients'primary reasons for preference of the iPad were portability, ease ofnavigation, and added versatility. Considering these reasons inaddition to lower cost and improved social acceptance, tablets, suchas the iPad, should be considered in the reading rehabilitation ofvisually impaired patients.Commercial Relationships: Alex Zemke, None; Danielle Irvine,None; John Coalter, None; Walter M. Jay, NoneSupport: 2012 Illinois Society for the Prevention of BlindnessResearch GrantProgram Number: 2750 Poster Board Number: B0004Presentation Time: 8:30 AM - 10:15 AMReading performance in low-vision patients using a low-costportable reading system prototypeAdriana Berezovsky, Vagner R. dos Santos, Nívea N. Cavascan,Solange R. Salomao. Departamento de Oftalmologia, UniversidadeFederal de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.Purpose: Reading performance is an important tool to evaluatepatients with impaired vision. Reading speed, reading acuity andcritical print size are factors that mainly influence readingperformance in normal and low-vision subjects. The aim of this studywas to investigate the impact of a recently developed low-costelectronic portable magnifier reading system (PRS) in the readingperformance of low-vision subjects.Methods: Ten adult subjects (ages ranging from 20 to 92 years) withlow vision and without any training for low vision devices wereincluded. Reading performance was assessed binocularly with bestoptical correction with the Minnesota Reading Speed Chart versionfor the Portuguese language (MNREAD Portuguese). PRS apparatusis composed of a system of image capturing coupled with a 5.6 inchmonochromatic monitor, providing up to 15 x standardmagnification. Parameters of reading speed (words per minute),reading acuity (logMAR), and critical print size (logMAR) weredetermined without and with the PRS prototype. Paired t-test wasused to compare results with and without PRS prototype for readingperformance parameters. When normality test failed, Wilcoxonsigned rank test was used. Statistical significance was set at p≤0.05.Results: Mean reading speed was 48.4 ± 30.5 words per minutewithout PRS, decreasing to 45.0 ± 19.6 words per minute with PRSutilization without any significance. All subjects showed©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 ARVO Office at arvo@arvo.org.
Page 5 and 6: ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
Page 100 and 101:
ARVO 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130:
show all

Visual Psychophysics / Physiological Optics - ARVO

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?