Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 3/2010

01-03-2010 | Basic Science

The effect of optotype presentation duration on acuity estimates revisited

Authors: Sven P. Heinrich, Katja Krüger, Michael Bach

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 3/2010

Login to get access

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.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Graham CH, Cook C (1937) Visual acuity as a function of intensity and exposure-time. Am J Psychol 49:654–661CrossRef Graham CH, Cook C (1937) Visual acuity as a function of intensity and exposure-time. Am J Psychol 49:654–661CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Monjé M, Schober H (1950) Vergleichende Untersuchungen an Sehproben für die Fernvisusbestimmung. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 117:561–570 Monjé M, Schober H (1950) Vergleichende Untersuchungen an Sehproben für die Fernvisusbestimmung. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 117:561–570
3.
go back to reference Zanen J, Klaassen-Nenquin E (1957) Acuité visuelle en fonction du temps d’exposition. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 114:574–581PubMed Zanen J, Klaassen-Nenquin E (1957) Acuité visuelle en fonction du temps d’exposition. Bull Soc Belge Ophtalmol 114:574–581PubMed
4.
go back to reference Schwarz F (1947) Der Einfluß der Darbietungszeit auf die Erkennbarkeit von Sehproben. Pflügers Arch 249:354–360CrossRef Schwarz F (1947) Der Einfluß der Darbietungszeit auf die Erkennbarkeit von Sehproben. Pflügers Arch 249:354–360CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Schwarz F (1951) Neue Sehschärfenmessungen: Die Prüfung der Sehleistung unter Berücksichtigung der Darbietungszeit der Sehproben. Graefes Arch Ophthalmol 151:714–724CrossRef Schwarz F (1951) Neue Sehschärfenmessungen: Die Prüfung der Sehleistung unter Berücksichtigung der Darbietungszeit der Sehproben. Graefes Arch Ophthalmol 151:714–724CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ehlers H (1948) On visual velocity. Acta Ophthalmol 26:115–121 Ehlers H (1948) On visual velocity. Acta Ophthalmol 26:115–121
7.
go back to reference Gerbstädt U (1949) Der Einfluß der Sehprobengröße auf die minimale Darbietungszeit. Pflügers Arch 251:559–570CrossRef Gerbstädt U (1949) Der Einfluß der Sehprobengröße auf die minimale Darbietungszeit. Pflügers Arch 251:559–570CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Baron WS, Westheimer G (1973) Visual acuity as a function of exposure duration. J Opt Soc Am 63:212–219CrossRefPubMed Baron WS, Westheimer G (1973) Visual acuity as a function of exposure duration. J Opt Soc Am 63:212–219CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Kono M, Yamade S (1996) Temporal integration in diseased eyes. Int Ophthalmol 20:231–239PubMed Kono M, Yamade S (1996) Temporal integration in diseased eyes. Int Ophthalmol 20:231–239PubMed
10.
go back to reference von Boehmer H, Kolling GH (1998) Zusammenhang zwischen Sehschärfe und Darbietungszeit einzelner Landoltringe bei Normalpersonen und bei Nystagmus-Patienten. Ophthalmologe 95:717–720CrossRef von Boehmer H, Kolling GH (1998) Zusammenhang zwischen Sehschärfe und Darbietungszeit einzelner Landoltringe bei Normalpersonen und bei Nystagmus-Patienten. Ophthalmologe 95:717–720CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ng J, Westheimer G (2002) Time course of masking in spatial resolution tasks. Optom Vis Sci 79:98–102CrossRefPubMed Ng J, Westheimer G (2002) Time course of masking in spatial resolution tasks. Optom Vis Sci 79:98–102CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference 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 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
13.
go back to reference Charman WN, Heron G (1988) Fluctuations in accommodation: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 8:153–164CrossRefPubMed Charman WN, Heron G (1988) Fluctuations in accommodation: a review. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 8:153–164CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Stark L, Campbell FW, Atwood J (1958) Pupil unrest: an example of noise in a biological servomechanism. Nature 182:857–858CrossRefPubMed Stark L, Campbell FW, Atwood J (1958) Pupil unrest: an example of noise in a biological servomechanism. Nature 182:857–858CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Montés-Micó R (2007) Role of the tear film in the optical quality of the human eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1631–1635CrossRefPubMed Montés-Micó R (2007) Role of the tear film in the optical quality of the human eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1631–1635CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Bach M (1996) The “Freiburg Visual Acuity Test” — Automatic measurement of the visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53CrossRefPubMed Bach M (1996) The “Freiburg Visual Acuity Test” — Automatic measurement of the visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Liebeman HR, Pentlant AP (1982) Microcomputer-based estimation of psychophysiological thresholds: the best PEST. Behav Res Methods Instrument 14:21–25 Liebeman HR, Pentlant AP (1982) Microcomputer-based estimation of psychophysiological thresholds: the best PEST. Behav Res Methods Instrument 14:21–25
18.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160CrossRefPubMed Bland JM, Altman DG (1999) Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat Methods Med Res 8:135–160CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference 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 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
21.
go back to reference Arditi A, Cagenello R (1993) On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:120–129PubMed Arditi A, Cagenello R (1993) On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:120–129PubMed
Metadata
Title
The effect of optotype presentation duration on acuity estimates revisited
Authors
Sven P. Heinrich
Katja Krüger
Michael Bach
Publication date
01-03-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 3/2010
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-009-1268-2

Other articles of this Issue 3/2010

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 3/2010 Go to the issue