How Accurate is an LCD Screen Version of the Pelli-Robson Test?

Overview

Journal Int Ophthalmol

Specialty Ophthalmology

Date 2017 Jun 23

PMID 28639086

Citations 3

Authors

Fabrizio Zeri

Paolo Calcatelli

Eleonora Funaro

Marialuisa Martelli

Shehzad A Naroo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli-Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli-Robson chart.

Methods: Two different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli-Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week.

Results: In Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli-Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland-Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli-Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland-Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively.

Conclusions: Computer-generated versions of Pelli-Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli-Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli-Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version.

Citing Articles

Visual performance with multifocal corneal gas-permeable contact lenses in young adults: A pilot study.

Alanazi M, Caroline P, Lampa M, Liu M J Optom. 2022; 15(4):305-312.

PMID: 35120873 PMC: 9537242. DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2022.01.001.

Precision and Normative Values of a New Computerized Chart for Contrast Sensitivity Testing.

Savini G, Calossi A, Schiano-Lomoriello D, Barboni P Sci Rep. 2019; 9(1):16537.

PMID: 31719575 PMC: 6851081. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-52987-9.

The effects of two longpass filters on visual performance.

Cozza F, Monzio Compagnoni M, Airoldi C, Braga C, Nigrotti G, Vlasak N J Optom. 2019; 13(2):102-112.

PMID: 31635988 PMC: 7182782. DOI: 10.1016/j.optom.2019.07.001.

References

Hohberger B, Laemmer R, Adler W, Juenemann A, Horn F . Measuring contrast sensitivity in normal subjects with OPTEC 6500: influence of age and glare. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007; 245(12):1805-14. DOI: 10.1007/s00417-007-0662-x. View

Li X, Lu Z, Xu P, Jin J, Zhou Y . Generating high gray-level resolution monochrome displays with conventional computer graphics cards and color monitors. J Neurosci Methods. 2003; 130(1):9-18. DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0270(03)00174-2. View

Pelli D, Zhang L . Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays. Vision Res. 1991; 31(7-8):1337-50. DOI: 10.1016/0042-6989(91)90055-a. View

Arden G, Jacobson J . A simple grating test for contrast sensitivity: preliminary results indicate value in screening for glaucoma. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1978; 17(1):23-32. View

Applegate R, Massof R . Changes in the contrast sensitivity function induced by contact lens wear. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1975; 52(12):840-6. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-197512000-00005. View

Rabin J, Wicks J . Measuring resolution in the contrast domain: the small letter contrast test. Optom Vis Sci. 1996; 73(6):398-403. DOI: 10.1097/00006324-199606000-00007. View

Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

Hiraoka T, Okamoto C, Ishii Y, Kakita T, Oshika T . Contrast sensitivity function and ocular higher-order aberrations following overnight orthokeratology. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007; 48(2):550-6. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.06-0914. View

Thayaparan K, Crossland M, Rubin G . Clinical assessment of two new contrast sensitivity charts. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006; 91(6):749-52. PMC: 1955579. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2006.109280. View

10.

Regan D, Silver R, Murray T . Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in multiple sclerosis--hidden visual loss: an auxiliary diagnostic test. Brain. 1977; 100(3):563-79. DOI: 10.1093/brain/100.3.563. View

11.

Dorr M, Lesmes L, Lu Z, Bex P . Rapid and reliable assessment of the contrast sensitivity function on an iPad. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013; 54(12):7266-73. PMC: 4589140. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.13-11743. View

12.

Elliott D, Gilchrist J, Whitaker D . Contrast sensitivity and glare sensitivity changes with three types of cataract morphology: are these techniques necessary in a clinical evaluation of cataract?. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1989; 9(1):25-30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.1989.tb00800.x. View

13.

Murdoch I, Morris S, Cousens S . People and eyes: statistical approaches in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol. 1998; 82(8):971-3. PMC: 1722711. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.82.8.971. View

14.

Butuner Z, Elliott D, Gimbel H, Slimmon S . Visual function one year after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Corneal Surg. 1994; 10(6):625-30. View

15.

Hong Y, Kim S, Kim E, Kim T . Contrast sensitivity measurement with 2 contrast sensitivity tests in normal eyes and eyes with cataract. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2010; 36(4):547-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2009.10.048. View

16.

Kumar V, Ghosh B, Mehta D, Goel N . Functional outcome of subthreshold versus threshold diode laser photocoagulation in diabetic macular oedema. Eye (Lond). 2010; 24(9):1459-65. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2010.53. View

17.

Kollbaum P, Jansen M, Kollbaum E, Bullimore M . Validation of an iPad test of letter contrast sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci. 2014; 91(3):291-6. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000158. View

18.

Ibanez H, Lesher M, Singerman L, Rice T, Keep G . Prospective evaluation of the effect of pseudophakic cystoid macula edema on contrast sensitivity. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993; 111(12):1635-9. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1993.01090120057022. View

19.

Pelli D, Palomares M, Majaj N . Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: distinguishing feature integration from detection. J Vis. 2005; 4(12):1136-69. DOI: 10.1167/4.12.12. View

20.

Howes S, Caelli T, Mitchell P . Contrast sensitivity in diabetics with retinopathy and cataract. Aust J Ophthalmol. 1982; 10(3):173-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-9071.1982.tb00380.x. View