Advertisement

Age-related course of visual acuity obtained with ETDRS 2000 charts in persons with healthy eyes

  • Wolfgang RadnerEmail author
  • Thomas Benesch
Miscellaneous

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the age-related course of best-corrected visual acuity in healthy eyes.

Methods

Two hundred participants (400 eyes) 25 to 74 years of age (114 females, 86 males) were investigated, 20 per 5-year age group. Best-corrected visual acuity was measured monocularly with the ETDRS 2000 charts at a distance of 4 m (Precision Vision, Woodstock, IL, USA). Strict exclusion and termination criteria were used.

Results

Visual acuity did not change between ages 25 and 54 years (mean of the better eyes, − 0.18 ± 0.05 logMAR). A significant age-related break-point in visual acuity was found at the ages of 55–59 years. For all age groups, the overall mean visual acuity was − 0.15 ± 0.06 logMAR for the better eyes and − 0.13 ± 0.06 logMAR for the worse eyes. There was no difference between the right and left eyes (− 0.14 ± 0.06 logMAR). The visual acuity was better in the right eye in 29% (n = 58) of the participants, better in the left eye in 32% (n = 64), and the same in both eyes in 39% (n = 78). From ages 25 to 64 years, neither the better nor the worse eye had a visual acuity worse than 0.0 logMAR.

Conclusion

Best-corrected visual acuity was constantly high until the age of 54 years. An age-related break-point appeared at 55 to 59 years of age. Until age 64, a minimal angle of resolution smaller than 1 min of arc (visual acuity better 0.0 logMAR) can be expected in healthy eyes.

Keywords

ETDRS ETDRS charts Visual acuity Vision Age-related Age-related vision Normal vision Reading center Clinical research 

Notes

Funding

The study was supported by the “Adele Rabensteiner Fonds” of the Austrian Ophthalmic Society.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study has been reviewed by the Ethical Commission of Vienna. All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    De Haan V (1862) Onderzoekingen naar den invloed van der leeftijd op de gezigtsscherpte. Diss Inaug UtrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Donders F (1864) Acuteness of vision modified by age. In: Moore W (ed) On the anomalies of accommodation and refraction of the eye. New Sydenham Society, London, pp 188–197Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Boerma D, Walther K (1893) Untersuchungen über die Abnahme der Sehschärfe im Alter. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 39:71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Owsley C, Sekuler R, Siemsen D (1983) Contrast sensitivity throughout adulthood. Vis Res 23:689–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elliott D, Yang K, Whitaker D (1995) Visual acuity changes throughout adulthood in normal healthy eyes: seeing beyond 6/6. Optom Vis Sci 72:186–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Frisén L, Frisén M (1981) How good is normal visual acuity?. A study of letter acuity thresholds as a function of age. Graefes Arch Klin Exp Ophthalmol 215:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hazel CA, Elliott DB (2002) The dependency of logMAR visual acuity measurements on chart design and scoring rule. Optom Vis Sci 79:788–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bailey I, Lovie-Kitchin J (2013) Visual acuity testing. From the laboratory to the clinic. Vis Res 90:2–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kitchin J, Bailey I (1981) Task complexity and visual acuity in senile macular degeneration. Australasian J Optom 63:235–242Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levi D, Song S, Pelli D (2007) Amblyopic reading is crowded. J Vision 7:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carkeet A (2001) Modeling logMAR visual acuity scores: effects of termination rules and alternative forced-choice options. Optom Vis Sci 78:529–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sheedy J, Bailey I, Raasch T (1984) Visual acuity and chart luminance. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 61:595–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferris F, Bailey I (1996) Standardizing the measurement of visual acuity for clinical research studies. Ophthalmology 103:181–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gibson R, Sanderson H (1980) Observer variations in ophthalmology. Br J Ophthalmol 64:457–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Elliott D, Whitaker D (1992) Clinical contrast sensitivity chart evaluation. Ophthal Physiol Opt 12:275–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Owsley C (2011) Aging and vision. Vis Res 51:1610–1622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chylack L, Wolfe J, Singer D et al (1993) The lens opacities classification system III. The longitudinal study of cataract study group. Arch Ophthalmol 111:831–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elliott D (2016) The good (logMAR), the bad (Snellen) and the ugly (BCVA, number of letters read) of visual acuity measurement. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 36:355–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pitts D (1982) The effects of aging on selected visual functions: dark adaptation, visual acuity, stereopsis, and brightness contrast. In: Sekuler R, Kline D, Dismukes J (eds) Aging and human visual function, Vol 2. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, pp 131–159Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weale R (1975) Senile changes in visual acuity. Trans Ophthalmol Soc UK 95:36–38Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Weale R (1982) Senile ocular changes, cell death, and vision. In: Sekuler R, Kline D, Dismukes K (eds) Aging and human visual function, Vol 2. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, pp 161–172Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Weymuth F (1960) The effect of age on visual acuity. In: Hirsch M, Wick R (eds) Vision of aging patients: an optometric symposium. Chilton Company, Philadelphia, pp 37–62Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leibkowitz H, Krueger D, Maunder L et al (1980) The Framingham eye study monograph. Surv Ophthalmol 25:335–610Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chapanis A (1950) Relationship between age, visual acuity and colour vision. Hum Biol 22:1–33Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kornzweig A, Feldstein M, Schneider J (1957) The eye in old age: IV. Ocular survey of over one thousand aged persons with special reference to normal and disturbed function. Am J Opthalmol 44:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Burg A (1966) Visual acuity as measured by dynamic and static tests: a comparative evaluation. J Appl Psychol 50:460–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Milne J, Williamson J (1972) Visual acuity in older people. Gerontol Clin 14:249–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Freeman R (1980) Visual acuity better for letters in rows than in columns. Nature 286:62–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bailey I, Lovie J (1976) New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Optic 53:745–753Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ferris F, Kassoff A, Bresnick G et al (1982) New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 94:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Austrian Academy of OphthalmologyViennaAustria
  2. 2.Department of OphthalmologyUniversity Hospital St. Pölten, Karl Landsteiner University for Health SciencesSt. PöltenAustria
  3. 3.Department of Development StudiesViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations