» Articles » PMID: 20076965

The Effect of Optotype Presentation Duration on Acuity Estimates Revisited

Overview
Specialty Ophthalmology
Date 2010 Jan 16
PMID 20076965
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: A high reproducibility of visual acuity estimates is important when monitoring disease progression or treatment success. One factor that may affect the result of an acuity measurement is the duration of optotype presentation. For times below 1 s, previous studies have convincingly shown that acuity estimates increase with presentation duration. For durations above 1 s, the situation is less clear.

Methods: We have reassessed this issue using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test with normal subjects. Presentation durations of 0.1 s, 1 s, and 10 s were assessed.

Results: Confirming previous findings, in all subjects acuity estimates in the 1-s condition were higher than those in the 0.1-s condition, on average nearly by a factor of 2, equivalent to 3 lines. However, in 12 out of 14 subjects, acuity estimates increased further with a presentation duration of 10 s, on average by 23% (P=0.002), or roughly 1 line. Test-retest variability improved by 49% (P=0.003). These findings can be explained by a simple statistical model of acuity fluctuations. Cognitive processing may also be a relevant factor. Interestingly, most observers subjectively felt that they could perceive the optotypes best in the 1-s condition.

Conclusion: The results highlight the importance of standardizing presentation durations when high reproducibility is required.

Citing Articles

Age-related normal limits for spatial vision.

Keuken A, Subramanian A, Mueller-Schotte S, Barbur J Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2022; 42(6):1363-1378.

PMID: 35979702 DOI: 10.1111/opo.13037.


Assessment of Human Visual Acuity Using Visual Evoked Potential: A Review.

Zheng X, Xu G, Zhang K, Liang R, Yan W, Tian P Sensors (Basel). 2020; 20(19).

PMID: 32998208 PMC: 7582995. DOI: 10.3390/s20195542.


The "speed" of acuity in scotopic vs. photopic vision.

Heinrich S, Blechenberg T, Reichel C, Bach M Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2020; 258(12):2791-2798.

PMID: 32803325 PMC: 7677280. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-020-04867-6.


VEP estimation of visual acuity: a systematic review.

Hamilton R, Bach M, Heinrich S, Hoffmann M, Odom J, McCulloch D Doc Ophthalmol. 2020; 142(1):25-74.

PMID: 32488810 PMC: 7907051. DOI: 10.1007/s10633-020-09770-3.


A comparison of contrast sensitivity and sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP) acuity estimates in normal humans.

Ridder 3rd W Doc Ophthalmol. 2019; 139(3):207-219.

PMID: 31414313 DOI: 10.1007/s10633-019-09712-8.


References
1.
Ehlers H . On visual velocity. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh). 1948; 26(2):115-21. View

2.
ZANEN J, KLAASSEN-NENQUIN E . [Visual acuity as a function of the time of exposure]. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol. 1957; 114:574-81. View

3.
METROPOLIS N, ULAM S . The Monte Carlo method. J Am Stat Assoc. 1949; 44(247):335-41. DOI: 10.1080/01621459.1949.10483310. View

4.
Schwarz F . The influence of the performance time on the recognizability of visual samples. Pflugers Arch Gesamte Physiol Menschen Tiere. 2010; 249(4):354-60. View

5.
Arditi A, Cagenello R . On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993; 34(1):120-9. View