Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2/2016

01-02-2016 | Neurophthalmology

Marked dissociation of photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity even in normal observers

Authors: Hannah Hertenstein, Michael Bach, Nikolai Johannes Gross, Flemming Beisse

Published in: Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Aim

Although contrast vision is not routinely tested, it is important: for instance, it predicts traffic incidents better than visual acuity. Mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS) testing approximates low-lighting conditions but entails dark adaptation, which can disrupt clinical routine. In receptor-specific diseases, a dissociation of photopic and mesopic sensitivity would be expected, but can photopic CS act as a surrogate measure for mesopic CS, at least for screening purposes?

Methods

Photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivities were studied in three groups: 47 normal subjects, 23 subjects with glaucoma, and three subjects with cataract. Twenty-eight of the normal subjects were additionally tested with artificial blur. Photopic contrast sensitivity was assessed with both the Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test (FrACT) and the Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Charts. Mesopic contrast sensitivity, without and with glare, was measured with the Mesoptometer IIb. Coefficients of repeatability and limits of agreement were calculated for all tests.

Results

Test–retest limits of agreement were ± 0.17 logCS for Mars, ± 0.21 logCS for FrACT, and ±0.20 logCS / ± 0.14 logCS for Mesoptometer IIb without and with glare, respectively. In terms of inter-test comparison, Mars and FrACT largely agreed, except for ceiling effects in the Mars test. While mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivities correlate significantly (r  = 0.51, p < 0.01), only 27 % of the variance is in common. In particular, subjects with high photopic results may be nearly as likely to have low as well as high mesopic results.

Conclusions

The photopic contrast sensitivity tests assessed here cannot serve as surrogate measures for current mesopic contrast sensitivity tests. Low photopic CS predicts low mesopic CS, but with normal photopic CS, mesopic CS can be normal or pathologic.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wood JM, Owens DA (2005) Standard measures of visual acuity do not predict drivers’ recognition performance under day or night conditions. Optom Vis Sci 82:698–705PubMedCrossRef Wood JM, Owens DA (2005) Standard measures of visual acuity do not predict drivers’ recognition performance under day or night conditions. Optom Vis Sci 82:698–705PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Owsley C, Stalvey BT, Wells J et al (2001) Visual risk factors for crash involvement in older drivers with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 119:881–887PubMedCrossRef Owsley C, Stalvey BT, Wells J et al (2001) Visual risk factors for crash involvement in older drivers with cataract. Arch Ophthalmol 119:881–887PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Rubin GS, Bandeen-Roche K, Huang G-H et al (2001) The Association of Multiple Visual Impairments with Self-Reported Visual Disability: SEE Project. IOVS 42:64–72 Rubin GS, Bandeen-Roche K, Huang G-H et al (2001) The Association of Multiple Visual Impairments with Self-Reported Visual Disability: SEE Project. IOVS 42:64–72
6.
go back to reference Aulhorn E, Harms H (1970) Über die Untersuchung der Nachtfahreignung von Kraftfahrern mit dem Mesoptometer. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilk 157:843–873 Aulhorn E, Harms H (1970) Über die Untersuchung der Nachtfahreignung von Kraftfahrern mit dem Mesoptometer. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilk 157:843–873
9.
go back to reference Bach M (1996) The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test — automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53PubMedCrossRef Bach M (1996) The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test — automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Neargarder SA, Stone ER, Cronin-Golomb A, Oross S (2003) The impact of acuity on performance of four clinical measures of contrast sensitivity in Alzheimer’s disease. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 58:P54–P62PubMedCrossRef Neargarder SA, Stone ER, Cronin-Golomb A, Oross S (2003) The impact of acuity on performance of four clinical measures of contrast sensitivity in Alzheimer’s disease. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 58:P54–P62PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Bühren J, Terzi E, Bach M et al (2006) Measuring contrast sensitivity under different lighting conditions: comparison of three tests. Optom Vis Sci 83:290–298PubMedCrossRef Bühren J, Terzi E, Bach M et al (2006) Measuring contrast sensitivity under different lighting conditions: comparison of three tests. Optom Vis Sci 83:290–298PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Bach M (2007) The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test — variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245:965–971PubMedCrossRef Bach M (2007) The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test — variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245:965–971PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
go back to reference Lieberman HR, Pentland AP (1982) Microcomputer-based estimation of psychophysical thresholds: The best PEST. Behav Res Methods Instrum 14:21–25CrossRef Lieberman HR, Pentland AP (1982) Microcomputer-based estimation of psychophysical thresholds: The best PEST. Behav Res Methods Instrum 14:21–25CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Dougherty BE, Flom RE, Bullimore MA (2005) An evaluation of the Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test. Optom Vis Sci 82:970–975PubMedCrossRef Dougherty BE, Flom RE, Bullimore MA (2005) An evaluation of the Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test. Optom Vis Sci 82:970–975PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Haymes SA, Roberts KF, Cruess AF et al (2006) The Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test: clinical evaluation of a new design. IOVS 47:2739–2745. doi:10.1167/iovs.05-1419 Haymes SA, Roberts KF, Cruess AF et al (2006) The Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test: clinical evaluation of a new design. IOVS 47:2739–2745. doi:10.​1167/​iovs.​05-1419
24.
go back to reference Bedell HE (1987) Eccentric regard, task and optical blur as factors influencing visual acuity a low luminances. Night Vision Current Research and Future Directions. Symposium Proceedings. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 146–161 Bedell HE (1987) Eccentric regard, task and optical blur as factors influencing visual acuity a low luminances. Night Vision Current Research and Future Directions. Symposium Proceedings. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 146–161
25.
go back to reference Owens DA (1987) Normal variations of visual accommodation and binocular vergence: some implications for night vision. Night Vision Current Research and Future Directions. Symposium Proceedings. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 85–106 Owens DA (1987) Normal variations of visual accommodation and binocular vergence: some implications for night vision. Night Vision Current Research and Future Directions. Symposium Proceedings. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 85–106
26.
go back to reference Blakemore C, Campbell FW (1969) On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images. J Physiol 203:237–260PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Blakemore C, Campbell FW (1969) On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images. J Physiol 203:237–260PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Kinney JAS (1968) Clinical measurement of night vision. The Measurement of Visual Function. Proceedings of Spring Symposium, 1965. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 139–152 Kinney JAS (1968) Clinical measurement of night vision. The Measurement of Visual Function. Proceedings of Spring Symposium, 1965. National Academy Press, Washington, pp 139–152
Metadata
Title
Marked dissociation of photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity even in normal observers
Authors
Hannah Hertenstein
Michael Bach
Nikolai Johannes Gross
Flemming Beisse
Publication date
01-02-2016
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 0721-832X
Electronic ISSN: 1435-702X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-015-3020-4

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2/2016 Go to the issue