Advertisement

Assessing retinal/neural function in the presence of ocular media opacities

  • Paul V. McGraw
  • Brendan T. Barrett
Short Communication
  • 23 Downloads

Abstract

Techniques currently available for investigating retinal/neural function in the presence of media opacities have traditionally been assessed in terms of their ability to predict the level of Snellen acuity which will be achieved following therapy. We propose an alternative method of assessment in which techniques are evaluated in terms of their ability to pre-operatively distinguish patients with reduced retinal/neural function from normals. In order to demonstrate this method of assessment, the data from a paper comparing the predictive abilities of a white-light and a laser interferometer in patients undergoing capsulotomy [21] have been re-analysed. The approach enables fair comparison of the predictive abilities of the various techniques and will therefore help to resolve the issue of which technique provides the best means of assessing retinal/neural function in the presence of media opacities.

Keywords

Public Health Predictive Ability Fair Comparison Laser Interferometer Snellen Acuity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Faulkner W (1983) Laser interferometric prediction of postoperative visual acuity in patients with cataracts. Am J Ophthalmol 95: 626–636Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rassow B, Wolf D (1977) Die Messung der retinalen Sehschärfe mit dem Laserinterferengerät als klinische Routinemethode. Adv Ophthalmol 34: 116–142Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lotmar W (1980) Apparatus for the measurement of retinal visual acuity by moire fringes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 19: 393–400Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brodie SE (1987) Evaluation of cataractous eyes with opaque media. Int Ophthalmol Clin 27: 153–162Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sinclair SH, Loebl M, Riva CE (1979) Blue field entopic phenomenon in cataract patients. Arch Ophthalmol 97: 1092–1095Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barrett BT, Davison PA, Eustace P (1994) The effects of posterior segment disorders on oscillatory displacement thresholds, and on acuities as measured using the potential acuity meter and laser interferometer. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 14: 132–138Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Enoch J, Williams RA (1983) Development of clinical tests of vision: initial data on two hyperacuity paradigms. Percept Psychophys 33: 314–322Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Whitaker D, Deady J (1989) Prediction of visual function behind cataract using displacement threshold hyperacuity. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 9: 20–24Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Minkowski JS, Palese M, Guyton DL (1983) Potential Acuity Meter using a minute aerial pinhole aperture. Ophthalmology 90: 1360–1368Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bernth-Petersen P, Naeser K (1982) Clinical evaluation of the Lotmar Visometer for macula testing in cataract patients. Acta Ophthalmol 60: 525–532Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halliday BL, Ross JE (1983) Comparison of two interferometers for predicing visual acuity in patients with cataract. Br J Ophthalmol 67: 273–277Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barrett BT (1994) Comparing techniques for evaluating retinal/neural function behind cataract. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 14: 433–434Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guyton DL (1986) Misleading predictions of postoperative visual acuity. Arch Ophthalmol 104: 189–190Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Elliott DB, Sheridan M (1988) The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 8: 397–401Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lovie-Kitchin JE (1988) Validity and reliability of visual acuity measurements. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 8: 363–370Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bailey IL, Lovie JE (1976) New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 53: 745–753Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Courtney P (1992) The national cataract surgery survey. I. Method and descriptive features. Eye 6: 487–492Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stark WJ, Worthen DM, Holladay IT et al. (1983) The FDA report on intraocular lenses. Ophthalmology 90: 311–317Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller ST, Graney MJ, Elam IT, Applegate WB, Freeman JM (1988) Predictions of outcomes from cataract surgery in elderly persons. Ophthalmology 95: 1125–1129Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sherman J, Davis E, Schnider C, et al. (1988) Presurgical prediction of postsurgical visual acuity in patients with media opacities. J Am Optom Assoc 59: 481–488Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strong N (1992) Interferometric assessment of potential visual acuity before YAG capsulotomy; relative performance of three instruments. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 220: 42–46Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leibowitz HM, Kreuger DE, Maunder LR, et al. (1980) The Framingham eye study monograph: an ophthalmological and epidemiological study of cataract, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration and visual acuity in a general population of 2631 adults. Surv Ophthalmol 24 [Suppl]: 335–610Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley New York, pp 5–53Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Owsley C, Sloane M (1987) Contrast sensitivity, acuity and perception of ‘real-world’ targets. Br J Ophthalmol 71: 791–796Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul V. McGraw
    • 1
  • Brendan T. Barrett
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OptometryUniversity of BradfordBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations