Clinical Report: Virtual Reality Enables Comparable Contrast Sensitivity Measurements to In-office Testing (pilot Study)

Overview

Journal Optom Vis Sci

Date 2024 Feb 26

PMID 38408310

Authors

Christopher P Cheng

Randal A Serafini

Margarita Labkovich

Andrew J Warburton

Vicente Navarro

Neha Shaik

Harsha Reddy

James G Chelnis

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Significance: Vision health disparities largely stem from inaccessibility to vision specialists. To improve patient access to vision tests and to expedite clinical workflows, it is important to assess the viability of virtual reality (VR) as a modality for evaluating contrast sensitivity.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the validity of a VR version of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test by comparing its results with those of the corresponding in-office test.

Methods: Twenty-eight participants (mean ± standard deviation age, 37.3 ± 20.5 years) with corrected vision were recruited for testing on a voluntary basis with randomized administration of the in-office test followed by the VR analog or vice versa. Nineteen participants took each test twice to assess test-retest consistency in each modality. Virtual reality tests were conducted on a commercial Pico Neo Eye 2 VR headset, which has a 4K screen resolution. The environment for both tests was controlled by the participant for location and lighting.

Results: Similar sensitivity scores were obtained between testing modalities in both the right (n = 28 participants; Wilcoxon match-paired signed rank [SR], p=0.7) and left eyes (n = 28 participants; Wilcoxon match-paired SR, p=0.7). In addition, similar test-retest scores were found for VR (n = 19 participants; Wilcoxon match-paired SR, p=1.0) or in-office (n = 19 participants; Wilcoxon match-paired SR, p=1.0) tests. Virtual reality Pelli-Robson results correlated well with in-office test results in variably diseased participants (n = 14 eyes from 7 participants, R2 = 0.93, p<0.0001).

Conclusions: In this pilot trial, we demonstrated that VR Pelli-Robson measurements of corrected vision align with those of in-office modalities, suggesting that this may be a reliable method of implementing this test in a more interactive and accessible manner.

References

Gibson D . The geographic distribution of eye care providers in the United States: Implications for a national strategy to improve vision health. Prev Med. 2015; 73:30-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.01.008. View

Tiraset N, Poonyathalang A, Padungkiatsagul T, Deeyai M, Vichitkunakorn P, Vanikieti K . Comparison of Visual Acuity Measurement Using Three Methods: Standard ETDRS Chart, Near Chart and a Smartphone-Based Eye Chart Application. Clin Ophthalmol. 2021; 15:859-869. PMC: 7924116. DOI: 10.2147/OPTH.S304272. View

Cooke M, Winter P, McKenney K, Packard K, Williams V, Dorsey E . An innovative visual acuity chart for urgent and primary care settings: validation of the Runge near vision card. Eye (Lond). 2019; 33(7):1104-1110. PMC: 6707193. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-019-0372-8. View

Labkovich M, Warburton A, Ying S, Valliani A, Kissel N, Serafini R . Virtual Reality Hemifield Measurements for Corrective Surgery Eligibility in Ptosis Patients: A Pilot Clinical Trial. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2022; 11(10):35. PMC: 9617504. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.11.10.35. View

Vivas-Mateos G, Boswell S, Livingstone I, Delafield-Butt J, Giardini M . Screen and Virtual Reality-Based Testing of Contrast Sensitivity. Annu Int Conf IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2020; 2020:6054-6057. DOI: 10.1109/EMBC44109.2020.9175595. View

Labkovich M, Paul M, Kim E, Serafini R, Lakhtakia S, Valliani A . Portable hardware & software technologies for addressing ophthalmic health disparities: A systematic review. Digit Health. 2022; 8:20552076221090042. PMC: 9087242. DOI: 10.1177/20552076221090042. View

Wong K, Ang B, Gunasekeran D, Husain R, Boon J, Vikneson K . Remote Perimetry in a Virtual Reality Metaverse Environment for Out-of-Hospital Functional Eye Screening Compared Against the Gold Standard Humphrey Visual Fields Perimeter: Proof-of-Concept Pilot Study. J Med Internet Res. 2023; 25:e45044. PMC: 10623222. DOI: 10.2196/45044. View

Gupta L, Cvintal V, Delvadia R, Sun Y, Erdem E, Zangalli C . SPARCS and Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity testing in normal controls and patients with cataract. Eye (Lond). 2017; 31(5):753-761. PMC: 5437330. DOI: 10.1038/eye.2016.319. View

Goldzweig C, Rowe S, Wenger N, Maclean C, Shekelle P . Preventing and managing visual disability in primary care: clinical applications. JAMA. 2004; 291(12):1497-502. DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.12.1497. View

10.

Shneor E, Pinero D, Doron R . Contrast sensitivity and higher-order aberrations in Keratoconus subjects. Sci Rep. 2021; 11(1):12971. PMC: 8217180. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-92396-5. View

11.

Pflugfelder S . Tear dysfunction and the cornea: LXVIII Edward Jackson Memorial Lecture. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011; 152(6):900-909.e1. PMC: 3223272. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajo.2011.08.023. View

12.

Ginsburg A, Cheetham J, DeGryse R, Abelson M . Effects of flurbiprofen and indomethacin on acute cystoid macular edema after cataract surgery: functional vision and contrast sensitivity. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1995; 21(1):82-92. DOI: 10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80485-3. View

13.

Adamsons I, Rubin G, Vitale S, Taylor H, Stark W . The effect of early cataracts on glare and contrast sensitivity. A pilot study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1992; 110(8):1081-6. DOI: 10.1001/archopht.1992.01080200061025. View

14.

Vingopoulos F, Garg I, Kim E, Thomas M, Silverman R, Kasetty M . Quantitative contrast sensitivity test to assess visual function in central serous chorioretinopathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2022; 107(8):1139-1143. DOI: 10.1136/bjophthalmol-2021-320415. View

15.

Njeru S, Osman M, Brown A . The Effect of Test Distance on Visual Contrast Sensitivity Measured Using the Pelli-Robson Chart. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2021; 10(2):32. PMC: 7900877. DOI: 10.1167/tvst.10.2.32. View

16.

Irving E, Harris J, Machan C, Robinson B, Hrynchak P, Leat S . Value of Routine Eye Examinations in Asymptomatic Patients. Optom Vis Sci. 2016; 93(7):660-6. DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000863. View

17.

McLaughlin D, Savatovsky E, OBrien R, Vanner E, Munshi H, Pham A . Reliability of Visual Field Testing in a Telehealth Setting Using a Head-Mounted Device: A Pilot Study. J Glaucoma. 2023; 33(1):15-23. PMC: 10713003. DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000002290. View

18.

Maaranen T, Mantyjarvi M . Contrast sensitivity in patients recovered from central serous chorioretinopathy. Int Ophthalmol. 2000; 23(1):31-5. DOI: 10.1023/a:1006496615006. View

19.

Nagra M, Allen P, Norgett Y, Beukes E, Bowen M, Vianya-Estopa M . The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on working practices of UK primary care optometrists. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2021; 41(2):378-392. PMC: 8013371. DOI: 10.1111/opo.12786. View

20.

Heravian Shandiz J, Derakhshan A, Daneshyar A, Azimi A, Ostadi Moghaddam H, Yekta A . Effect of cataract type and severity on visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. J Ophthalmic Vis Res. 2012; 6(1):26-31. PMC: 3306069. View