Resolution acuity versus recognition acuity with Landolt-style optotypes
International standards define acuity as the reciprocal of the threshold gap size of a Landolt C optotype. However, the literature is inconsistent as to what type of acuity is measured with Landolt Cs. The present study addresses this question more directly than previous studies by quantifying the effect of an inherent luminance artifact in Landolt-style optotypes.
Two groups of modified optotypes were used. In the first group, each optotype had a single gap structure with the same average luminance. Between optotypes, the gap structures differed in their degree of fineness. In the second group of optotypes, a standard gap was always present, defining the orientation of the optotype. Additional gap structures of the same average luminance, but different fineness, were inserted at the remaining potential gap locations, thereby balancing luminance across potential gap locations. Visual acuity measures were obtained for each optotype variant, using a computer-based test employing a staircase procedure.
Similar acuity values were obtained for all optotypes of the first group, and for standard Landolt Cs, irrespective of the fineness of the gap structure. With luminance-balanced optotypes of the second group, measured acuity was halved, compared to standard optotypes.
The results support the view that it is recognition acuity, rather than resolution acuity, which is measured with standard Landolt-style optotypes, with the imbalanced luminance distribution serving as a cue. Luminance-balanced optotypes may help to obtain a more veridical estimate of resolution acuity, although recognition acuity may be more relevant in daily living.
KeywordsVisual acuity Shape perception Landolt C Resolution Recognition
- 1.International Organization for Standardization (2009) ISO 8596, Ophthalmic optics—visual acuity testing—standard optotype and its presentation. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- 7.Pirenne MH (1962) Visual acuity. In: Davson H (ed) The eye: the visual process. Academic, New York, pp 175–195Google Scholar
- 8.Rea MS (ed) (2000) The IESNA lighting handbook, 9th edn. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 14.Riggs LA (1965) Visual acuity. In: Graham CH (ed) Vision and visual perception. Wiley & Sons, New York, pp 321–349Google Scholar
- 17.Schober H (1952) Untersuchungen über die Verwendbarkeit des Landoltschen Ringes als Normzeichen bei der Sehschärfebestimmung. Optik 9:225–235Google Scholar
- 24.Ewing AE (1920) Test objects for the illiterate. Am J Ophthalmol 3:5–22Google Scholar