Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Das „Frankfurt-Freiburg Contrast and Acuity Test System“ (FF-CATS)

Ein neuer Test zur Kontrastsensitivitätsbestimmung unter variablen Beleuchtungs- und Blendbedingungen

Frankfurt-Freiburg Contrast and Acuity Test System (FF-CATS)

A new test to determine contrast sensitivity under variable ambient and glare luminance levels

  • Originalien
  • Published:
Der Ophthalmologe Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Ziel dieser Studie war die Evaluation eines neuen computergestützten Tests zur Messung von Kontrastschwellen unter verschiedenen Beleuchtungs- und Blendbedingungen.

Methoden

40 Augen von 40 gesunden Probanden wurden mit dem „Frankfurt-Freiburg Contrast and Acuity Test System“ (FF-CATS) und dem „Functional Acuity Contrast Test“ (F.A.C.T.) bei 0,167 cd m-2 (mesopisch) und 167 cd m-2 (photopisch) untersucht. Die Messungen erfolgten 2fach in randomisierter Reihenfolge, jeweils ohne und mit Blendquelle. Die Evaluation erfolgte hinsichtlich dreier Kriterien: (1) Wiederholbarkeit, (2) Trennschärfe und (3) Validität.

Ergebnisse

Das FF-CATS zeigte eine höhere Trennschärfe zwischen beiden Gruppen im Vergleich zur F.A.C.T.-Tafel. Im Photopischen war der COR-Wert für das FF-CATS 0,39 und 0,26 für die F.A.C.T.-Tafel, unter mesopischen Bedingungen lag der COR-Wert für das FF-CATS bei 0,46 und bei 0,36 für die F.A.C.T.-Tafel.

Schlussfolgerung

Das FF-CATS ist ein verlässliches, sensitives, valides und flexibles Testverfahren, das die Ermittlung von Visus- und Kontrastschwellen unter variabel wählbaren Beleuchtungs- und Blendbedingungen erlaubt.

Abstract

Background

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate a computerized test for measurement of contrast sensitivity thresholds under variable ambient and glare luminance levels.

Methods

A total of 40 eyes of 40 healthy subjects were examined with the FF-CATS and the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT) at 0.167 cd/m-2 (mesopic) and 167 cd/m-2 (photopic). Measurements were performed twice with and without glare in a randomized fashion. Tests were evaluated according to three criteria: (1) repeatability, (2) discriminative ability, and (3) validity.

Results

The FF-CATS showed a higher discriminative ability between the two groups compared to the FACT charts. Under photopic conditions, the COR value was 0.39 for the FF-CATS and 0.26 for the FACT charts; under mesopic illumination, the COR value for the FF-CATS was 0.46 and 0.36 for the FACT charts.

Conclusion

The FF-CATS is a reliable, sensitive, valid, and flexible test system for the determination of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity thresholds under variable ambient and glare luminance conditions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2

Notes

  1. Das FF-CATS wurde als DOG-gefördertes Projekt (Forschungsförderungspreis 2001) in der Universitätsaugenklinik Frankfurt am Main in Zusammenarbeit mit der Universitätsaugenklinik Freiburg i. Br. und der Höheren Fachschule für Augenoptik Köln entwickelt.

Literatur

  1. Bach M (1996) The Freiburg Visual Acuity test—automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boxer Wachler BS, Durrie DS, Assil KK et al. (1999) Role of clearance and treatment zones in contrast sensitivity: significance in refractive surgery. J Cataract Refract Surg 25:16–23

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Dennis RJ, Beer JM, Baldwin JB et al. (2004) Using the Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test to measure visual performance in USAF personnel after PRK. Optom Vis Sci 81:516–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elliott DB (1987) Contrast sensitivity decline with ageing: a neural or optical phenomenon? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 7:415–419

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Elliott DB, Bullimore MA (1993) Assessing the reliability, discriminative ability, and validity of disability glare tests. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:108–119

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fan-Paul NLJ, Sullivan Miller J, Florakis G (2002) Night vision disturbances after corneal refractive surgery. Surv Ophthalmol 47:533–546

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Guirao A, Gonzalez C, Redondo M et al. (1999) Average optical performance of the human eye as a function of age in a normal population. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 40:203–213

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Higgins KE, Jaffe MJ, Coletta NJ et al. (1984) Spatial contrast sensitivity. Importance of controlling the patient’s visibility criterion. Arch Ophthalmol 102:1035–1041

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kaiserman I, Hazarbassanov R, Varssano D et al. (2004) Contrast sensitivity after wave front-guided LASIK. Ophthalmology 111:454–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Koch DD, Kohnen T, Obstbaum SA et al. (1998) Format for reporting refractive surgical data (editorial). J Cataract Refract Surg 24:285–287

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kohnen T (2001) Measuring vision in refractive surgery (editorial). J Cataract Refract Surg 27:1897–1898

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lohmann CP, Fitzke F, O’Brart D et al. (1993) Corneal light scattering and visual performance in myopic individuals with spectacles, contact lenses, or excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. Am J Ophthalmol 115:444–453

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Loumann Knudsen L (2003) Visual acuity testing in diabetic subjects: the decimal progression chart versus the Freiburg visual acuity test. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 241:615–618

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mantyjarvi M, Laitinen T (2001) Normal values for the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test. J Cataract Refract Surg 27:261–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Massof RWDB, Rubin GS (1988) ROC analysis applied to multivariate diagnostic tests. Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System. Technical Digest 3:102–105

    Google Scholar 

  17. McKee SP, Klein SA, Teller DY (1985) Statistical properties of forced-choice psychometric functions: implications of probit analysis. Percept Psychophys 37:286–298

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McLellan JS, Marcos S, Burns SA (2001) Age-related changes in monochromatic wave aberrations of the human eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 42:1390–1395

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. McLeod SD (2001) Beyond snellen acuity: the assessment of visual function after refractive surgery (editorial). Arch Ophthalmol 119:1371–1373

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Montes-Mico R, Charman WN (2001) Choice of spatial frequency for contrast sensitivity evaluation after corneal refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 17:646–651

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Perez-Santonja JJ, Sakla HF, Alio JL (1998) Contrast sensitivity after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg 24:183–189

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pesudovs K, Hazel CA, Doran RM et al. (2004) The usefulness of Vistech and FACT contrast sensitivity charts for cataract and refractive surgery outcomes research. Br J Ophthalmol 88:11–16

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Rassow B (1999) Einfluß der Leuchtdichte auf Kontrast- und Blendungsempfindlichkeit im mesopischen Bereich. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 214:401–406

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Reeves BC, Wood JM, Hill AR (1993) Reliability of high- and low-contrast letter charts. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 13:17–26

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schlote T, Kriegerowski M, Bende T et al. (1997) Mesopic vision in myopia corrected by photorefractive keratectomy, soft contact lenses, and spectacles. J Cataract Refract Surg 23:718–725

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Swets JA, Pickett RM (1982) Methods from signal detection theory. In: Evaluation of diagnostic systems. Academic Press, London, pp 17–37

  27. Tan JC, Spalton DJ, Arden GB (1999) The effect of neodymium: YAG capsulotomy on contrast sensitivity and the evaluation of methods for its assessment. Ophthalmology 106:703–709

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vaegan, Halliday BL (1982) A forced-choice test improves clinical contrast sensitivity testing. Br J Ophthalmol 66:477–491

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wachler BS, Krueger RR (1998) Normalized contrast sensitivity values. J Refract Surg 14:463–466

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wesemann W (2002) Sehschärfebestimmung mit Freiburger Visustest, Bailey-Lovie-Tafel und Landoltring-Tafel. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 219:660–667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Wilson SE (2003) Wave-front analysis: are we missing something? (editorial) Am J Ophthalmol 136:340–342

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Danksagung

Wir danken Herrn Prof. Dr. med. Michael Bach, Klinik für Augenheilkunde der Universität Freiburg, für Anregungen und Ratschläge.

Interessenkonflikt:

Der korrespondierende Autor versichert, dass keine Verbindungen mit einer Firma, deren Produkt in dem Artikel genannt ist, oder einer Firma, die ein Konkurrenzprodukt vertreibt, bestehen.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Klinik für Augenheilkunde, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt am Main

    E. Terzi, J. Bühren &  T. Kohnen

  2. Höhere Fachschule für Augenoptik (HFAK), Köln

    W. Wesemann

  3. Zentrum für Augenheilkunde, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590 , Frankfurt am Main

    T. Kohnen

Authors
  1. E. Terzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Bühren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. Wesemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Kohnen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Kohnen.

Additional information

Vortrag gehalten auf der 101. Tagung der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft in Berlin, 2003.

Das Projekt wurde von der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft (Forschungsförderungspreis 2001) gefördert.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Terzi, E., Bühren, J., Wesemann, W. et al. Das „Frankfurt-Freiburg Contrast and Acuity Test System“ (FF-CATS). Ophthalmologe 102, 507–513 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-004-1125-y

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-004-1125-y

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation