Choice of Grating Orientation for Evaluation of Peripheral Vision
Overview
Affiliations
Purpose: Peripheral resolution acuity depends on the orientation of the stimuli. However, it is uncertain if such a meridional effect also exists for peripheral detection tasks because they are affected by optical errors. Knowledge of the quantitative differences in acuity for different grating orientations is crucial for choosing the appropriate stimuli for evaluations of peripheral resolution and detection tasks. We assessed resolution and detection thresholds for different grating orientations in the peripheral visual field.
Methods: Resolution and detection thresholds were evaluated for gratings of four different orientations in eight different visual field meridians in the 20-deg visual field in white light. Detection measurements in monochromatic light (543 nm; bandwidth, 10 nm) were also performed to evaluate the effects of chromatic aberration on the meridional effect. A combination of trial lenses and adaptive optics system was used to correct the monochromatic lower- and higher-order aberrations.
Results: For both resolution and detection tasks, gratings parallel to the visual field meridian had better threshold compared with the perpendicular gratings, whereas the two oblique gratings had similar thresholds. The parallel and perpendicular grating acuity differences for resolution and detection tasks were 0.16 logMAR and 0.11 logMAD, respectively. Elimination of chromatic errors did not affect the meridional preference in detection acuity.
Conclusions: Similar to peripheral resolution, detection also shows a meridional effect that appears to have a neural origin. The threshold difference seen for parallel and perpendicular gratings suggests the use of two oblique gratings as stimuli in alternative forced-choice procedures for peripheral vision evaluation to reduce measurement variation.
Chromatic cues for the sign of defocus in the peripheral retina.
Zheleznyak L, Liu C, Winter S Biomed Opt Express. 2024; 15(9):5098-5114.
PMID: 39296412 PMC: 11407258. DOI: 10.1364/BOE.537268.
Comparison of optical myopia control interventions: effect on peripheral image quality and vision.
Papadogiannis P, Borjeson C, Lundstrom L Biomed Opt Express. 2023; 14(7):3125-3137.
PMID: 37497498 PMC: 10368058. DOI: 10.1364/BOE.486555.
Radial bias in face identification.
Roux-Sibilon A, Peyrin C, Greenwood J, Goffaux V Proc Biol Sci. 2023; 290(2001):20231118.
PMID: 37357864 PMC: 10291718. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2023.1118.
Adaptive optics visual simulators: a review of recent optical designs and applications [Invited].
Marcos S, Artal P, Atchison D, Hampson K, Legras R, Lundstrom L Biomed Opt Express. 2023; 13(12):6508-6532.
PMID: 36589577 PMC: 9774875. DOI: 10.1364/BOE.473458.
Peripheral detection acuity for interference fringes and screen-based Gabor gratings.
Jaisankar D, Suheimat M, Rosen R, Atchison D Biomed Opt Express. 2023; 13(12):6645-6658.
PMID: 36589567 PMC: 9774851. DOI: 10.1364/BOE.473486.