The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test-Variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis

Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Background

The Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test (FrACT) has been further developed; it is now available for Macintosh and Windows free of charge at http://www.michaelbach.de/fract.html. The present study sought to reduce the test-retest variability of visual acuity on short runs (18 trials) by post-hoc re-analysis.

Methods

The FrACT employs advanced computer graphics to present Landolt Cs over the full range of visual acuity. The sequence of optotypes presented follows an adaptive staircase procedure, the Best-PEST algorithm. The Best-PEST threshold obtained after 18 trials was compared to the result of a post-hoc re-analysis of the acquired data, where both threshold and slope of the psychometric function were estimated via a maximum-likelihood fit.

Results

Testing time was 1.7 min per run on average. Test-retest reproducibility was ±2 lines (or ±0.2 logMAR) for a 95% confidence band (using 18 optotype presentations per test run). Post-hoc psychometric fitting reproduced the Best-PEST result within 1%, although the individual slopes varied widely; test-retest reproducibility was not improved.

Conclusions

The FrACT offers advantages over traditional chart testing with respect to objectivity and reliability. The similarity between the results of the Best-PEST vs. post-hoc analysis, fitting both slope and threshold, suggest that there is no disadvantage to the constant slope assumed by Best PEST. Furthermore, since variability was not reduced by post-hoc analysis, for high reliability more trials should be employed than the 18 trials per run used here.

Keywords

Visual acuity Automation Computer 

References

  1. 1.
    Bach M (1996) The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test-automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bach M (1997) Anti-aliasing and dithering in the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test. Spat Vis 11:85–89PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bach M (2006) Homepage of the Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test (‘FrACT’). Retrieved 2006-07-04, from http://www.michaelbach.de/fract.html
  4. 4.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 346:1085–1087PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (1996) Ophthalmic optics-visual acuity testing-the standard optotype and its presentation. Beuth-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dennis RJ, Beer JM, Baldwin JB, Ivan DJ, Lorusso FJ, Thompson WT (2004) Using the Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test to measure visual performance in USAF personnel after PRK. Optom Vis Sci 81:516–524PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Foley JD, Van Dam A, Feiner SK, Hughes JF (1990) Computer Graphics, Principles and Practice. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hess R, Woo G (1978) Vision through cataracts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 17:428–435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Klein SA (2001) Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: a commentary. Percept Psychophys 63:1421–1455PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lieberman HR, Pentland AP (1982) Microcomputer-based estimation of psychophysical thresholds: The best PEST. Behav Res Methods Instrument 14:21–25Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linschoten MR, Harvey LO, Jr., Eller PM, Jafek BW (2001) Fast and accurate measurement of taste and smell thresholds using a maximum-likelihood adaptive staircase procedure. Percept Psychophys 63:1330–1347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loumann Knudsen L (2003) Visual acuity testing in diabetic subjects: the decimal progression chart versus the Freiburg visual acuity test. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 241:615–618PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Macmillan NA (2001) Threshold estimation: the state of the art. Percept Psychophys 63:1277–1278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peters BT, Bloomberg JJ (2005) Dynamic visual acuity using “far” and “near” targets. Acta Otolaryngol 125:353–357PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petersen J (1990) Zur Fehlerbreite der subjektiven Visusmessung. Fortschr Ophthalmol 87:604–608PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruamviboonsuk P, Tiensuwan M, Kunawut C, Masayaanon P (2003) Repeatability of an automated Landolt C test, compared with the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) chart testing. Am J Ophthalmol 136:662–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schulze-Bonsel K, Feltgen N, Burau H, Hansen LL, Bach M (2006) Visual acuities “Hand Motion” and “Counting Fingers” can be quantified using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci [in print]Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Treutwein B (1995) Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision Res 35:2503–2522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Treutwein B, Strasburger H (1999) Fitting the psychometric function. Percept Psychophys 61:87–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weisstein EW. (2006) “Likelihood.” From MathWorld - A Wolfram Web Resource. Retrieved 2006-06-27, from < http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Likelihood.html >
  23. 23.
    Wesemann W (2002) [Visual acuity measured via the Freiburg visual acuity test (FVT), Bailey Lovie chart and Landolt Ring chart]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 219:660–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001) The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 63:1293–1313PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University Augenklinik FreiburgFreiburgGermany

Personalised recommendations