Improving the repeatability of heterochromatic flicker photometry for measurement of macular pigment optical density

Miscellaneous

Abstract

Background

Heterochromatic flicker photometry (HFP) is a psychophysical technique used to measure macular pigment optical density (MPOD). We used the MPS 9000 (MPS) HFP device. Our aim was to determine if the repeatability of the MPS could be improved to make it more suitable for monitoring MPOD over time.

Methods

Intra-session repeatability was assessed in 25 participants (aged 20–50 years). The resulting data was explored in detail, e.g., by examining the effect of removal and adjustment of data with less than optimal quality parameters. A protocol was developed for improved overall reliability, which was then tested in terms of inter-session repeatability in a separate group of 27 participants (aged 19–52 years).

Results

Removal and adjustment of data reduced the intra-session coefficient of repeatability (CR) by 0.04, on average, and the mean individual standard deviation by 0.004. Raw data observation offered further insight into ways of improving repeatability. The proposed protocol resulted in an inter-session CR of 0.08.

Conclusions

Removal and adjustment of less than optimal data improved repeatability, and is therefore recommended. To further improve repeatability, in brief we propose that each patient perform each part of the test twice, and a third time where necessary (described in detail by the protocol). Doing so will make the MPS more useful in research and clinical settings.

Keywords

Age-related macular degeneration Heterochromatic flicker photometry Macular pigment Macular pigment optical density 

Notes

Disclosure

No financial relationships with external organisations exist.

References

  1. 1.
    Bone RA, Landrum JT, Hime GW, Cains A, Zamor J (1993) Stereochemistry of the human macular carotenoids. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:2033–2040PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Malinow MR, Feeney-Burns L, Peterson LH, Klein ML, Neuringer M (1980) Diet-related macular anomalies in monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 19:857–863PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Neuringer M, Sandstrom MM, Johnson EJ, Snodderly DM (2004) Nutritional manipulation of primate retinas, I: effects of Lutein or zeaxanthin supplements on serum and macular pigment in xanthophyll-free rhesus monkeys. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 45:3234–3243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hammond BR, Johnson EJ, Russell RM, Krinsky NI, Yeum KJ, Edwards RB, Snodderly DM (1997) Dietary modification of human macular pigment density. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38:1795–1801PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wenzel AJ, Gerweck C, Barbato D, Nicolosi RJ, Handelman GJ, Curran-Celentano J (2006) A 12-wk egg intervention increases serum zeaxanthin and macular pigment optical density in women. J Nutr 136:2568–2573PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Connolly EE, Beatty S, Thurnham DI, Loughman J, Howard AN, Stack J, Nolan JM (2010) Augmentation of macular pigment following supplementation with all three macular carotenoids: an exploratory study. Curr Eye Res 35:335–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wyszecki G, Stiles WS (1982) The eye. In: Color science: concepts and methods, quantitative data and formulae. Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp 112–114Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Snodderly DM, Brown PK, Delori FC, Auran JD (1984) The macular pigment. I. Absorbance spectra, localization, and discrimination from other yellow pigments in primate retinas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 25:660–673PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Handelman GJ, Snodderly DM, Krinsky NI, Russett MD, Adler AJ (1991) Biological control of primate macular pigment—biochemical and densitometric studies. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 32:257–267PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bone RA, Landrum JT, Cains A (1992) Optical density spectra of the macular pigment in vivo and in vitro. Vis Res 32:105–110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hammond BR, Caruso-Avery M (2000) Macular pigment optical density in a southwestern sample. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:1492–1497PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Landrum JT, Bone RA (2001) Lutein, zeaxanthin, and the macular pigment. Arch Biochem Biophys 385:28–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chucair AJ, Rotstein NP, SanGiovanni JP, During A, Chew EY, Politi LE (2007) Lutein and zeaxanthin protect photoreceptors from apoptosis induced by oxidative stress: relation with docosahexaenoic acid. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:5168–5177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khachik F, Bernstein PS, Garland DL (1997) Identification of lutein and zeaxanthin oxidation products in human and monkey retinas. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 38:1802–1811PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beatty S, Koh HH, Henson D, Boulton M (2000) The role of oxidative stress in the pathogenesis of age-related macular degeneration. Surv Ophthalmol 45:115–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Algvere PV, Marshall J, Seregard S (2006) Age-related maculopathy and the impact of blue light hazard. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 84:4–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Beatty S, Murray IJ, Henson DB, Carden D, Koh HH, Boulton ME (2001) Macular pigment and risk for age-related macular degeneration in subjects from a Northern European population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:439–446PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bone RA, Landrum JT, Mayne ST, Gomez CM, Tibor SE, Twaroska EE (2001) Macular pigment in donor eyes with and without AMD: a case-control study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:235–240PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Richer S, Stiles W, Statkute L, Pulido J, Frankowski J, Rudy D, Pei K, Tsipursky M, Nyland J (2004) Double-masked, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of Lutein and antioxidant supplementation in the intervention of atrophic age-related macular degeneration: the Veterans LAST study (Lutein Antioxidant Supplementation Trial). Optometry 75:216–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nolan JM, Stack J, O'Donovan O, Loane E, Beatty S (2007) Risk factors for age-related maculopathy are associated with a relative lack of macular pigment. Exp Eye Res 84:61–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Snodderly DM, Hammond BR (1999) In vivo psychophysical assessment of nutritional and environmental influences on human ocular tissues: lens and macular pigment. In: Taylor A (ed) Nutritional and environmental influences on the eye. CRC Press, Boca Raton FL, pp 251–273Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Loane E, Stack J, Beatty S, Nolan JM (2007) Measurement of macular pigment optical density using two different heterochromatic flicker photometers. Curr Eye Res 32:555–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kirby ML, Galea M, Loane E, Stack J, Beatty S, Nolan JM (2009) Foveal anatomic associations with the secondary peak and the slope of the macular pigment spatial profile. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 50:1383–1391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hammond BR, Wooten BR, Snodderly DM (1997) Individual variations in the spatial profile of human macular pigment. J Opt Soc Am A Optic Image Sci Vis 14:1187–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Landrum JT, Bone RA, Joa H, Kilburn MD, Moore LL, Sprague KE (1997) A one year study of the macular pigment: the effect of 140 days of a Lutein supplement. Exp Eye Res 65:57–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wooten BR, Hammond BR, Land RI, Snodderly DM (1999) A practical method for measuring macular pigment optical density. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:2481–2489PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Makridaki M, Carden D, Murray IJ (2009) Macular pigment measurement in clinics: controlling the effect of the ageing media. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 29:338–344PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    van der Veen RLP, Berendschot TTJM, Hendrikse F, Carden D, Makridaki M, Murray IJ (2009) A new desktop instrument for measuring macular pigment optical density based on a novel technique for setting flicker thresholds. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 29:127–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bartlett H, Stainer L, Singh S, Eperjesi F, Howells O (2010) Clinical evaluation of the MPS 9000 macular pigment screener. Br J Ophthalmol 94:753–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    de Kinkelder R, van der Veen RLP, Verbaak FD, Faber DJ, van Leeuwen TG, Berendschot TTJM (2011) Macular pigment optical density measurements: evaluation of a device using heterochromatic flicker photometry. Eye 25:105–112PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Loughman J, Scanlon G, Nolan JM, O'Dwyer V, Beatty S (2012) An evaluation of a novel instrument for measuring macular pigment optical density: the MPS 9000. Acta Ophthalmol 90:e90–e97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bartlett H, Howells O, Eperjesi F (2010) The role of macular pigment assessment in clinical practice: a review. Clin Exp Optom 93:300–308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Howells O, Eperjesi F, Bartlett H (2011) Measuring macular pigment optical density in vivo: a review of techniques. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:315–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olivia Howells
    • 1
  • Frank Eperjesi
    • 1
  • Hannah Bartlett
    • 1
  1. 1.Ophthalmic Research Group, School of Life and Health SciencesAston UniversityBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations