Skip to main content

Comparison of LogMAR Eye charts with angular vision for visually impaired: the Berkeley rudimentary vision test vs LogMAR One target Landolt ring Eye chart

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology volume 251, pages 2761–2767 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

It is not common to quantify visual acuity worse than 2.0 logarithm of the minimal angle resolution (logMAR) (commensurate with decimal visual acuity 0.01) at ophthalmology clinics. Recently, the Berkeley rudimentary vision test (BRVT) was developed as a simple measurement tool of logMAR with angular vision for quantifying poor levels of visual acuity. We compared the difference between BRVT and conventional Landolt ring logMAR chart with angular vision measured by the logMAR one target Landolt ring eye chart (LogMAR LEC).

Methods

We reviewed 110 patients with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) in the better eye from light perception (LP) to 0.8 logMAR measured by LogMAR LEC. The reproducibility of the log MAR LEC and BRVT was evaluated on 39 eyes from 20 patients, and 33 eyes from 20 patients respectively. The comparison of logMAR between BRVT and logMAR LEC was evaluated by surveying 61 eyes from 70 patients. In addition, regardless of their BCVA, the eyes from patients with worse than 2.0 logMAR by LogMAR LEC were re-evaluated by BRVT.

Results

The logMAR of patients examined by BRVT or logMAR LEC did not show any significant difference between the first and second examinations, and there was a strong correlation between the examinations in both eye charts. The BRVT significantly produced better logMAR compared with logMAR LEC, and the strong correlation was shown between both eye charts. Although 35 eyes from 28 patients among 110 patients could not be quantified by logMAR LEC, 18 eyes of 35 eyes could be quantified logMAR by BRVT.

Conclusions

The BRVT and logMAR LEC are reliable visual acuity measurement tools. Moreover, the BRVT is potentially effective in quantifying visual acuity of the more severe visually impaired patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Latham K, Tabrett DR (2012) Guidelines for predicting performance with low vision AIDS. Optom Vis Sci 89(9):1316–1326

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Nguyen NX, Weismann M, Trauzettel-Klosinski S (2009) Improvement of reading speed after providing of low vision aids in patients with age-related macular degeneration. Acta Ophthalmol 87(8):849–853

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Schulze-Bonsel K, Feltgen N, Burau H, Hansen L, Bach M (2006) Visual acuities “hand motion” and “counting fingers” can be quantified with the freiburg visual acuity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 47(3):1236–1240

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Lange C, Feltgen N, Junker B, Schulze-Bonsel K, Bach M (2009) Resolving the clinical acuity categories “hand motion” and “counting fingers” using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test (FrACT). Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 247(1):137–142

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bailey IL, Jackson AJ, Minto H, Greer RB, Chu MA (2012) The Berkeley Rudimentary Vision Test. Optom Vis Sci 89(9):1257–1264

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lim LT, Frazer DG, Jackson AJ (2008) Clinical studies: visual acuities beyond Snellen. Br J Ophthalmol 92(1):153

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jackson AJ (2007) Assessment of visual function. In: Jackson AJ, Wolffsohn JS (eds) Low Vision Manual. Edinburgh London NewYork Oxford Philadelphia St Louis Sydney Toronto, Elsevier, pp 129–166

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Danilova MV, Bondarko VM (2007) Foveal contour interactions and crowding effects at the resolution limit of the visual system. J Vis 7(2):1–18

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bailey IL, Lovie JE (1976) New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 53(11):740–745

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ferris FL 3rd, Kassoff A, Bresnick GH, Bailey I (1982) New visual acuity charts for clinical research. Am J Ophthalmol 94(1):91–96

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1(8476):307–310

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Stelmack JA, Tang XC, Wei Y, Massof RW, Low-Vision Intervention Trial Study Group (2012) The effectiveness of low-vision rehabilitation in 2 cohorts derived from the veterans affairs Low-Vision Intervention Trial. Arch Ophthalmol 130(9):1162–1168

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ryan B, Khadka J, Bunce C, Court H (2013) Effectiveness of the community-based Low Vision Service Wales: a long-term outcome study. Br J Ophthalmol 97(4):487–491

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Anderson RS, Thibos LN (1999) Relationship between acuity for gratings and for tumbling-E letters in peripheral vision. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci Vis 16(10):2321–2333

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Reich LN, Ekabutr M (2002) The effects of optical defocus on the legibility of the Tumbling-E and Landolt-C. Optom Vis Sci 79(6):389–393

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Grimm W, Rassow B, Wesemann W, Saur K, Hilz R (1994) Correlation of optotypes with the Landolt ring–a fresh look at the comparability of optotypes. Optom Vis Sci 71(1):6–13

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Demirel S, Anderson RS, Dakin SC, Thibos LN (2012) Detection and resolution of vanishing optotype letters in central and peripheral vision. Vision Res 59:9–16

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shah N, Dakin SC, Anderson RS (2012) Effect of optical defocus on detection and recognition of vanishing optotype letters in the fovea and periphery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53(11):7063–7070

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bittner AK, Jeter P, Dagnelie G (2011) Grating acuity and contrast tests for clinical trials of severe vision loss. Optom Vis Sci 88(10):1153–1163

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Bach M, Wilke M, Wilhelm B, Zrenner E, Wilke R (2010) Basic quantitative assessment of visual performance in patients with very low vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51(2):1255–1260

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank for all individuals who cooperated to this study, and special thank for Dr. Satoshi Nakadomari, and the following orthoptists, who are Ms Akiko Yamada, Ms Yuki Nishiwaki and Ms Mayumi Komatsu from the Department of Rehabilitation, Low Vision Training, and Department of Medical Treatment (2), Ophthalmology, Hospital, National Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities, to give us proper advices and assist for this study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Rehabilitation, Low Vision Training, Hospital, National Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities, 4-1, Namiki, Tokorozawa, Saitama, 359-8555, Japan

    Marie Miwa

  2. Department of Medical Treatment (2), Ophthalmology, Hospital, National Rehabilitation Center for Persons with Disabilities, 4-1, Namiki, Tokorozawa, Saitama, 359-8555, Japan

    Marie Miwa, Masaki Iwanami & Tomomi Nishida

  3. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 4-57, Urafune, Minami-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 232-0024, Japan

    Mari S. Oba

  4. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, 3-9, Fukuura, Kanazawa-ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa, 236-0004, Japan

    Marie Miwa, Nobuhisa Mizuki & Tomomi Nishida

Authors
  1. Marie Miwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masaki Iwanami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mari S. Oba
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nobuhisa Mizuki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tomomi Nishida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomomi Nishida.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miwa, M., Iwanami, M., Oba, M.S. et al. Comparison of LogMAR Eye charts with angular vision for visually impaired: the Berkeley rudimentary vision test vs LogMAR One target Landolt ring Eye chart. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 251, 2761–2767 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-013-2469-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-013-2469-2

Keywords

  • Logarithm of the minimal angle resolution (logMAR)
  • Visual acuity
  • The Berkeley rudimentary vision test (BRVT)
  • LogMAR one target Landolt ring eye chart (LogMAR LEC)
  • Visually impaired
  • Low vision