Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 9/2011

01-09-2011 | Basic Science

The dynamics of practice effects in an optotype acuity task

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

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 9/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Practice-related improvements of performance are common in many areas of visual processing. There is preliminary evidence that this is also the case for standard optotype acuity tasks. The present study was designed to confirm and quantify the effect of practice under different feedback conditions and to track the dynamics of practice over several sessions.

Methods

Subjects completed a total of 56 runs of a computer-based acuity test with randomly oriented Landolt C optotypes, split evenly over four sessions at intervals of 1 week. Half of the subjects received feedback indicating the correct response.

Results

Over the course of the sessions, the test outcomes increased significantly by 0.11 logMAR with feedback and by 0.055 logMAR without feedback. In addition to an increase in acuity over the first few runs of the first session, a major part of the practice effect with feedback occurred not during a session, but in between the first and the second session. Without feedback, the increase in acuity occurred mainly within the first half of the first session.

Conclusions

Feedback has a drastic effect on the magnitude and dynamics of the practice effect, which is not explained by simple familiarization with the test procedure. If feedback is not given, practice effects can be neglected in most clinical routine applications even when many test repetitions are performed. However, they may become relevant on a group level in clinical studies without an appropriate control.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
The ICO guidelines forbid feedback in studies that aim at comparing two different acuity tests, but do not mention feedback in the context of patient testing. The current ISO 8596 standard [31] refers to these guidelines.
 
Literature
1.
Fine I, Jacobs RA (2002) Comparing perceptual learning tasks: a review. J Vis 2:190–203PubMed
2.
Fahle M, Edelman S, Poggio T (1995) Fast perceptual learning in hyperacuity. Vis Res 35:3003–3013PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
Censor N, Bonneh Y, Arieli A, Sagi D (2009) Early-vision brain responses which predict human visual segmentation and learning. J Vis 9:12.1–12.9CrossRef
5.
Gold J, Bennett PJ, Sekuler AB (1999) Signal but not noise changes with perceptual learning. Nature 402:176–178PubMedCrossRef
6.
Westheimer G (2001) Is peripheral visual acuity susceptible to perceptual learning in the adult? Vis Res 41:47–52PubMedCrossRef
7.
Cavazos H, Schulz E, Rassow B, Wesemann W (1990) Vergleich des Kindersehsch¨arfetests nach Lithander (Kolt-Test) mit dem standardisierten Landoltring. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 197:324–328PubMedCrossRef
8.
Rassow B, Cavazos H, Wesemann W (1990) Normgerechte Sehschärfebestimmung mit Buchstaben. Augenarztl Fortbild 13:105–114
9.
Johnson CA, Leibowitz HW (1979) Practice effects for visual resolution in the periphery. Percept Psychophys 25:439–442PubMedCrossRef
10.
Bennett RG, Westheimer G (1991) The effect of training on visual alignment discrimination and grating resolution. Percept Psychophys 49:541–546PubMedCrossRef
11.
Moke PS, Turpin AH, Beck RW, Holmes JM, Repka MX, Birch EE, Hertle RW, Kraker RT, Miller JM, Johnson CA (2001) Computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol 132:903–909PubMedCrossRef
12.
Beck RW, Moke PS, Turpin AH, Ferris FL 3rd, SanGiovanni JP, Johnson CA, Birch EE, Chandler DL, Cox TA, Blair RC, Kraker RT (2003) A computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol 135:194–205PubMedCrossRef
13.
Bourne RRA, Rosser DA, Sukudom P, Dineen B, Laidlaw DAH, Johnson GJ, Murdoch IE (2003) Evaluating a new logMAR chart designed to improve visual acuity assessment in population-based surveys. Eye 17:754–758PubMedCrossRef
14.
Laidlaw DAH, Tailor V, Shah N, Atamian S, Harcourt C (2008) Validation of a computerised logMAR visual acuity measurement system (COMPlog): comparison with ETDRS and the electronic ETDRS testing algorithm in adults and amblyopic children. Br J Ophthalmol 92:241–244PubMedCrossRef
15.
Heinrich SP, Krüger K, Bach M (2010) The effect of optotype presentation duration on acuity estimates revisited. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 248:389–394PubMedCrossRef
16.
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 247:137–142PubMedCrossRef
17.
Reeves BC, Wood JM, Hill AR (1991) Vistech VCTS 6500 charts–within- and between-session reliability. Optom Vis Sci 68:728–737PubMedCrossRef
18.
Pointer JS (2008) Recognition versus resolution: a comparison of visual acuity results using two-alternative test chart optotype. J Optom 1:65–70CrossRef
19.
Arditi A, Cagenello R (1993) On the statistical reliability of letter-chart visual acuity measurements. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 34:120–129PubMed
20.
Simpson TL, Regan D (1995) Test-retest variability and correlations between tests of texture processing, motion processing, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci 72:11–16PubMedCrossRef
21.
Ruamviboonsuk P, Tiensuwan M, Kunawut C, Masayaanon P (2003) Repeatability of an automated Landolt C test, compared with the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) chart testing. Am J Ophthalmol 136:662–669PubMedCrossRef
22.
Stifter E, König F, Lang T, Bauer P, Richter-Müksch S, Velikay-Parel M, Radner W (2004) Reliability of a standardized reading chart system: variance component analysis, test-retest and inter-chart reliability. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 242:31–39PubMedCrossRef
23.
Lim L, Frost NA, Powell RJ, Hewson P (2010) Comparison of the ETDRS logMAR, ‘compact reduced log- Mar’ and Snellen charts in routine clinical practice. Eye 24:673–677PubMedCrossRef
24.
Polat U, Ma-Naim T, Belkin M, Sagi D (2004) Improving vision in adult amblyopia by perceptual learning. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:6692–6697PubMedCrossRef
25.
Fronius M, Cirina L, Cordey A, Ohrloff C (2005) Visual improvement during psychophysical training in an adult amblyopic eye following visual loss in the contralateral eye. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 243:278–280PubMedCrossRef
26.
Li RW, Young KG, Hoenig P, Levi DM (2005) Perceptual learning improves visual performance in juvenile amblyopia. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 46:3161–3168PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zhou Y, Huang C, Xu P, Tao L, Qiu Z, Li X, Lu ZL (2006) Perceptual learning improves contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in adults with anisometropic amblyopia. Vis Res 46:739–750PubMedCrossRef
28.
Durrie D, McMinn PS (2007) Computer-based primary visual cortex training for treatment of low myopia and early presbyopia. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 105:132–138PubMed
29.
Tan DTH, Fong A (2008) Efficacy of neural vision therapy to enhance contrast sensitivity function and visual acuity in low myopia. J Cataract Refract Surg 34:570–577PubMedCrossRef
30.
Polat U (2009) Making perceptual learning practical to improve visual functions. Vis Res 49:2566–2573PubMedCrossRef
31.
International Organization for Standardization (2009) ISO 8596, Ophthalmic optics—Visual acuity testing—Standard optotype and its presentation. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
32.
International Council of Ophthalmology (1988) Visual acuity measurement standard. Ital J Ophthalmol II/I:1–15
33.
Deutsches Institut fur Normung (2009) DIN 58220–3, Sehschärfeprüfung — Teil 3: Prüfung fur Gutachten. Beuth Verlag, Berlin
34.
Bach M (1996) The “Freiburg Visual Acuity Test”—Automatic measurement of the visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53PubMedCrossRef
35.
Howell DC (1997) Statistical methods for psychology, 4th edn. Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove
36.
Coppens JE, van den Berg TJTP (2004) A new source of variance in visual acuity. Vis Res 44:951–958PubMedCrossRef
37.
Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (2005) Detection theory: a user’s guide, 2nd edn. Erlbaum, Mahwah
38.
Vertes RP, Siegel JM (2005) Time for the sleep community to take a critical look at the purported role of sleep in memory processing. Sleep 28:1228–1229PubMed
39.
40.
41.
Mednick SC, Nakayama K, Cantero JL, Atienza M, Levin AA, Pathak N, Stickgold R (2002) The restorative effect of naps on perceptual deterioration. Nat Neurosci 5:677–681PubMed
42.
Aberg KC, Tartaglia EM, Herzog MH (2009) Perceptual learning with chevrons requires a minimal number of trials, transfers to untrained directions, but does not require sleep. Vis Res 49:2087–2094PubMedCrossRef
43.
Mednick SC, Arman AC, Boynton GM (2005) The time course and specificity of perceptual deterioration. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:3881–3885PubMedCrossRef
44.
Hussain Z, Sekuler AB, Bennett PJ (2008) Robust perceptual learning of faces in the absence of sleep. Vis Res 48:2785–2792PubMedCrossRef
45.
Hussain Z, Sekuler AB, Bennett PJ (2009) How much practice is needed to produce perceptual learning? Vis Res 49:2624–2634PubMedCrossRef
46.
Randle RJ (1970) Volitional control of visual accommodation. In: Conference Proceedings, vol. 82, Advisory Group for Aerospace Research and Development, pp 15–17
47.
48.
Montés-Micó R (2007) Role of the tear film in the optical quality of the human eye. J Cataract Refract Surg 33:1631–1635PubMedCrossRef
49.
Beatty J (1982) Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. Psychol Bull 91:276–292PubMedCrossRef
50.
Cagenello R, Arditi A, Halpern DL (1993) Binocular enhancement of visual acuity. J Opt Soc Am A 10:1841–1848CrossRef
51.
Blake R (2001) A primer on binocular rivalry, including current controversies. Brain Mind 2:5–38CrossRef
52.
53.
Berntsen DA, Merchea MM, Richdale K, Mack CJ, Barr JT (2009) Higher-order aberrations when wearing sphere and toric soft contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 86:115–122PubMedCrossRef
54.
Li S, Xiong Y, Li J, Wang N, Dai Y, Xue L, Zhao H, JiangW ZY, He JC (2009) Effects of monochromatic aberration on visual acuity using adaptive optics. Optom Vis Sci 86:868–874PubMedCrossRef
55.
Pesudovs K (2005) Involvement of neural adaptation in the recovery of vision after laser refractive surgery. J Refract Surg 21:144–147PubMed
56.
Liu L, Klein SA, Xue F, Zhang JY, Yu C (2009) Using geometric moments to explain human letter recognition near the acuity limit. J Vis 9:26.1–26.18CrossRef
57.
Lithander J (1996) Two techniques to evaluate visual acuity from the age of 18 months. Strabismus 4:15–23PubMedCrossRef
58.
Chung STL, Levi DM, Li RW (2006) Learning to identify contrast-defined letters in peripheral vision. Vis Res 46:1038–1047PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
The dynamics of practice effects in an optotype acuity task
Authors
Sven P. Heinrich
Katja Krüger
Michael Bach
Publication date
01-09-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 9/2011
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-011-1675-z

Other articles of this Issue 9/2011

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 9/2011 Go to the issue

Retinal Disorders

Intravitreal bevacizumab in retinopathy of prematurity: an interventional case series

Retinal Disorders

Intravitreal bevacizumab versus photodynamic therapy for myopic choroidal neovascularization in a North-African population

Editors Choice

Arida A, Fragiadaki K, Giavri E, Sfikakis PP (2010) Anti-TNF Agents for Behçet´s disease: analysis of published data on 369 patients. Semin Arthritis Rheum [PMID:21168186]

Medical Ophthalmology

Transitioning from stratus OCT to cirrus OCT: a comparison and a proposed equation to convert central subfield macular thickness measurements in healthy subjects

Basic Science

An ex vivo model of coxsackievirus infection using multilayered human conjunctival epithelial cells

Neuro-ophthalmology

Measurement of distance objective visual acuity with the computerized optokinetic nystagmus test in patients with ocular diseases