Measuring contrast sensitivity in normal subjects with OPTEC® 6500: influence of age and glare
- 767 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to develop age-related curves for contrast sensitivity (CS) in normal subjects under day and night conditions with and without glare.
Sixty-one healthy eyes from 61 subjects were measured with the OPTEC® 6500 P under day and night conditions (luminance levels: 85 cd/m2 and 3.0 cd/m2 with and without glare; spatial frequencies: 1.5, 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycles/degree). A reliability analysis with five repeated measurements of six persons on 4 days was performed to examine the repeatability. The influence of age on contrast sensitivity, forward and backward scatter was examined by means of linear regression.
Contrast sensitivity was significantly reduced under night conditions with glare, whereas glare had less influence under daylight illumination. Mean reliability coefficients are 0.87 (day), 0.77 (day with glare), 0.69 (night) and 0.81 (night with glare), which suggests sufficient retest reliability of the device. Regression analyses showed a highly significant influence of age, but the variance of the measurement values is not explained by age alone. The coefficients of determination for the regression of area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) on age are 0.33 (photopic), 0.34 (photopic with glare), 0.29 (mesopic) and 0.36 (mesopic with glare, p < 0.0001 in all cases).
A significant relationship between age, CS and scatter was confirmed in our study. The results provide baseline values for the examination of patients with different diseases in which contrast sensitivity is impaired (such as glaucoma, cataracts and amblyopia) and might be useful in studies of roadworthiness or in investigation of the impact of intraocular lenses.
KeywordsDay vision Night vision Contrast sensitivity Normal values Glare
- 5.Bellmann C, Unnebrink K, Rubin GS, Miller D, Holz FG (2003) Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration. Results from the Radiation Therapy for Age-Related Macular Degeneration (RAD-) Study. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 241:968–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.De Natale R, Flammer J, Zulauf M, Bebie T (1988) Influence of Age on the Transparency of the Lens in Normals: a Population Study with Help of the Lens Opacity Meter 701. Ophthalmolgica 197:14–18Google Scholar
- 13.Flammer J, Bebie H (1987) Lens Opacity Meter: a new instrument to quantify lens opacity. Ophthalmolgica 195:69–72Google Scholar
- 15.Ginsburg AP (1981) Spatial Filtering and Vision: implications for Normal and abnormal Vision. Clinical Applications of Visual Psychophysics: 70Google Scholar
- 16.Ginsburg AP (1987) Contrast sensitivity, drivers’ visibility, and vision standards. From: Visibility for Highway Guidance and Hazard Detection, Transportation Research Record 1149, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, DC 32–39Google Scholar
- 17.Ginsburg AP (1987) The Evaluation of Contact Lenses and Refractive Surgery Using Contrast Sensitivity. Contact Lenses: the CLAO Guide to Basic Science and Clinical Science Update 2Google Scholar
- 19.Ginsburg AP (1996) Next generation contrast sensitivity testing. In Rosenthal B, Cole R (eds) Functional Assessment of Low Vision. St. Louis Mosby Year Book, Inc. 77–88Google Scholar
- 24.Horn F, Martus P, Korth M (1995) Comparison of temporal and statiotemporal contrast-sensitivity tests in normal subjects and glaucoma patients. German J Ophthalmol 4:97–102Google Scholar
- 31.Lachenmayr B, Buser A, Keller O, Berger J (1996) Sehstörungen als Unfallursache. In: Berichte der Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (BASt). Mensch und Sicherheit. Wirtschaftsverlag NW, Bremerhaven, Heft M65Google Scholar
- 32.Lachenmayr B, Berger J, Buser A, Keller O (1998) Reduziertes Sehvermögen führt zu erhöhtem Unfallrisiko im Straßenverkehr. Ophthalmolog 95:44–50Google Scholar
- 40.Nadler MP, Miller D, Nadler DJ (1990) Glare and Contrast Sensitivity For Clinicans. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 44.Sloane ME, Owsley C, Alvarez SL (1988) Aging, senile miosis and spatial contrast sensitivity at low luminance. Vision Research 28:1235–46PGoogle Scholar
- 46.Thayaparan K, Crossland MD, Rubin GS (2006) Clinical assessment of two novel contrast sensitivity charts. Br J Ophthalmol. DOI 17166891
- 48.van Rijn LJ, Nischler C, Gamer D, Franssen L, de Wit G, Kaper R, Vonhoff D, Grabner G, Wilhelm H, Volker-Dieben HJ, van den Berg TJ (2005) Measurement of stray light and glare: comparison of Nyktotest, Mesotest, stray light meter, and computer implemented stray light meter. Br J Ophthalmol 89:345–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.Williams DR (2002) What adaptive optics can do for the eye. Rev Refract Surg 3:14–20Google Scholar
- 52.Yoon G, Jeong TE, Cox IG, Williams DR (2004) Vision improvement by correcting higher-order aberrations with phase plate in normal eyes. J Refract Surg 20:523–527Google Scholar