Marked dissociation of photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity even in normal observers
- First Online:
Although contrast vision is not routinely tested, it is important: for instance, it predicts traffic incidents better than visual acuity. Mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS) testing approximates low-lighting conditions but entails dark adaptation, which can disrupt clinical routine. In receptor-specific diseases, a dissociation of photopic and mesopic sensitivity would be expected, but can photopic CS act as a surrogate measure for mesopic CS, at least for screening purposes?
Photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivities were studied in three groups: 47 normal subjects, 23 subjects with glaucoma, and three subjects with cataract. Twenty-eight of the normal subjects were additionally tested with artificial blur. Photopic contrast sensitivity was assessed with both the Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test (FrACT) and the Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Charts. Mesopic contrast sensitivity, without and with glare, was measured with the Mesoptometer IIb. Coefficients of repeatability and limits of agreement were calculated for all tests.
Test–retest limits of agreement were ± 0.17 logCS for Mars, ± 0.21 logCS for FrACT, and ±0.20 logCS / ± 0.14 logCS for Mesoptometer IIb without and with glare, respectively. In terms of inter-test comparison, Mars and FrACT largely agreed, except for ceiling effects in the Mars test. While mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivities correlate significantly (r = 0.51, p < 0.01), only 27 % of the variance is in common. In particular, subjects with high photopic results may be nearly as likely to have low as well as high mesopic results.
The photopic contrast sensitivity tests assessed here cannot serve as surrogate measures for current mesopic contrast sensitivity tests. Low photopic CS predicts low mesopic CS, but with normal photopic CS, mesopic CS can be normal or pathologic.
KeywordsContrast sensitivity Mesopic vision Photopic vision Rods Cones Age Traffic
- 3.Bundesministerium der Justiz (2010) Fahrerlaubnisverordnung, Anlage 6. http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/fev_2010/anlage_6.html. Accessed 6 Apr 2015
- 4.Rubin GS, Bandeen-Roche K, Huang G-H et al (2001) The Association of Multiple Visual Impairments with Self-Reported Visual Disability: SEE Project. IOVS 42:64–72Google Scholar
- 6.Aulhorn E, Harms H (1970) Über die Untersuchung der Nachtfahreignung von Kraftfahrern mit dem Mesoptometer. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilk 157:843–873Google Scholar
- 7.DOG-Verkehrskommission (2012) Stellungnahme der DOG-Verkehrskommission zur Prüfung des Dämmerungssehens bei der Fahreignungsbegutachtung. http://www.dog.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/DOG-Stellungn-Dämmerungssehen-2013-Webseite.pdf. Accessed 6 Apr 2015
- 13.Bach M (2009) Homepage of the Freiburg Visual Acuity & Contrast Test (“FrACT”). http://michaelbach.de/fract.html. Accessed 6 Apr 2015
- 17.R Development Core Team (2014) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 18 Aug 2014
- 24.Bedell HE (1987) Eccentric regard, task and optical blur as factors influencing visual acuity a low luminances. Night Vision Current Research and Future Directions. Symposium Proceedings. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 146–161Google Scholar
- 25.Owens DA (1987) Normal variations of visual accommodation and binocular vergence: some implications for night vision. Night Vision Current Research and Future Directions. Symposium Proceedings. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 85–106Google Scholar
- 28.Kinney JAS (1968) Clinical measurement of night vision. The Measurement of Visual Function. Proceedings of Spring Symposium, 1965. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 139–152Google Scholar