Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of optotype presentation duration on acuity estimates revisited

  • Basic Science
  • Published:
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

A high reproducibility of visual acuity estimates is important when monitoring disease progression or treatment success. One factor that may affect the result of an acuity measurement is the duration of optotype presentation. For times below 1 s, previous studies have convincingly shown that acuity estimates increase with presentation duration. For durations above 1 s, the situation is less clear.

Methods

We have reassessed this issue using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test with normal subjects. Presentation durations of 0.1 s, 1 s, and 10 s were assessed.

Results

Confirming previous findings, in all subjects acuity estimates in the 1-s condition were higher than those in the 0.1-s condition, on average nearly by a factor of 2, equivalent to 3 lines. However, in 12 out of 14 subjects, acuity estimates increased further with a presentation duration of 10 s, on average by 23% (P = 0.002), or roughly 1 line. Test–retest variability improved by 49% (P = 0.003). These findings can be explained by a simple statistical model of acuity fluctuations. Cognitive processing may also be a relevant factor. Interestingly, most observers subjectively felt that they could perceive the optotypes best in the 1-s condition.

Conclusion

The results highlight the importance of standardizing presentation durations when high reproducibility is required.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Graham CH, Cook C (1937) Visual acuity as a function of intensity and exposure-time. Am J Psychol 49:654–661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Monjé M, Schober H (1950) Vergleichende Untersuchungen an Sehproben für die Fernvisusbestimmung. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 117:561–570

    Google Scholar 

  3. Zanen J, Klaassen-Nenquin E (1957) Acuité visuelle en fonction du temps d’exposition. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 114:574–581

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwarz F (1947) Der Einfluß der Darbietungszeit auf die Erkennbarkeit von Sehproben. Pflügers Arch 249:354–360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Schwarz F (1951) Neue Sehschärfenmessungen: Die Prüfung der Sehleistung unter Berücksichtigung der Darbietungszeit der Sehproben. Graefes Arch Ophthalmol 151:714–724

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Ehlers H (1948) On visual velocity. Acta Ophthalmol 26:115–121

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gerbstädt U (1949) Der Einfluß der Sehprobengröße auf die minimale Darbietungszeit. Pflügers Arch 251:559–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Baron WS, Westheimer G (1973) Visual acuity as a function of exposure duration. J Opt Soc Am 63:212–219

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kono M, Yamade S (1996) Temporal integration in diseased eyes. Int Ophthalmol 20:231–239

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. von Boehmer H, Kolling GH (1998) Zusammenhang zwischen Sehschärfe und Darbietungszeit einzelner Landoltringe bei Normalpersonen und bei Nystagmus-Patienten. Ophthalmologe 95:717–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ng J, Westheimer G (2002) Time course of masking in spatial resolution tasks. Optom Vis Sci 79:98–102

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Westheimer G (1987) Visual acuity. In: Moses RA, Hart WM (eds) Adler’s physiology of the eye, 8th edn. Mosby, St. Luis, pp 415–428

    Google Scholar 

  13. Charman WN, Heron G (1988) Fluctuations in accommodation: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 8:153–164

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stark L, Campbell FW, Atwood J (1958) Pupil unrest: an example of noise in a biological servomechanism. Nature 182:857–858

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Montés-Micó R (2007) Role of the tear film in the optical quality of the human eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1631–1635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bach M (1996) The “Freiburg Visual Acuity Test” — Automatic measurement of the visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Liebeman HR, Pentlant AP (1982) Microcomputer-based estimation of psychophysiological thresholds: the best PEST. Behav Res Methods Instrument 14:21–25

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bartlett NR (1965) Thresholds as dependent on some energy relations and characteristics of the subject. In: Graham CH (ed) Visual perception. Wiley, New York, pp 154–184

    Google Scholar 

  20. Metropolis N, Ulam S (1949) The Monte Carlo method. J Am Statist Ass 44:335–341

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Arditi A, Cagenello R (1993) On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:120–129

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (BA 877/18). We are grateful to our subjects for their participation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sektion Funktionelle Sehforschung, Univ.-Augenklinik, Killianstr. 5, 79106, Freiburg, Germany

    Sven P. Heinrich & Michael Bach

  2. Fakultät für Biologie, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Schänzlestr. 1, 79104, Freiburg, Germany

    Katja Krüger

Authors
  1. Sven P. Heinrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katja Krüger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Bach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven P. Heinrich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heinrich, S.P., Krüger, K. & Bach, M. The effect of optotype presentation duration on acuity estimates revisited. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248, 389–394 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1268-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1268-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation