Comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity

被引:5
作者
Kordek, David [1 ]
Young, Laura K. [2 ,3 ]
Kremlacek, Jan [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Charles Univ Prague, Fac Med Hradec Kralove, Dept Med Biophys, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
[2] Newcastle Univ, Biosci Inst, Fac Med Sci, Newcastle, England
[3] Univ Oxford, Dept Expt Psychol, Oxford, England
[4] Charles Univ Prague, Fac Med Hradec Kralove, Dept Pathol Physiol, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic
关键词
D O I
10.1038/s41598-021-82965-z
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
In a low-cost laboratory setup, we compared visual acuity (VA) for stimuli rendered with Zernike aberrations to an equivalent optical dioptric defocus in emmetropic individuals using a relatively short observing distance of 60 cm. The equivalent spherical refractive error of + 1, + 2 or + 4 D, was applied in the rendering of Landolt Rings. Separately, the refractive error was introduced dioptrically in: (1) unchanged Landolt Rings with an added external lens (+ 1, + 2 or + 4 D) at the subject's eye; (2) same as (1) but with an added accommodation and a vertex distance adjustment. To compare all three approaches, we examined VA in 10 healthy men. Stimuli were observed on a PC CRT screen. For all three levels of refractive error, the pairwise comparison did not show a statistically significant difference between digital blur and accommodation-plus-vertex-distance-adjusted dioptric blur (p < 0.204). The best agreement, determined by Bland-Altman analysis, was measured for + 4 D and was in line with test-retest limits for examination in the clinical population. Our results show that even for a near observing distance, it is possible to use digitally rendered defocus to replicate dioptric blur without a significant change in VA in emmetropic subjects.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 32 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1988, ITALIAN J OPHTHALMOL, VI, P1
[2]   Visual acuity testing. From the laboratory to the clinic [J].
Bailey, Ian L. ;
Lovie-Kitchin, Jan E. .
VISION RESEARCH, 2013, 90 :2-9
[3]  
Bernhard L, 2015, BLANDALTMANLEH PLOTS
[4]   STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT [J].
BLAND, JM ;
ALTMAN, DG .
LANCET, 1986, 1 (8476) :307-310
[5]  
Born E., 2013, Principles of Optics: Electromagnetic Theory of Propagation, Interference and Diffraction of Light
[6]  
Dai G., 2008, Wavefront Optics for Vision Correction, DOI DOI 10.1117/3.769212
[7]   Experimental validation of a Bayesian model of visual acuity [J].
Dalimier, Eugenie ;
Pailos, Eliseo ;
Rivera, Ricardo ;
Navarro, Rafael .
JOURNAL OF VISION, 2009, 9 (07)
[8]   Subjective visual acuity with simulated defocus [J].
Dehnert, Anne ;
Bach, Michael ;
Heinrich, Sven P. .
OPHTHALMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL OPTICS, 2011, 31 (06) :625-631
[9]  
Doshi JB, 2001, J REFRACT SURG, V17, P414
[10]  
Fernández EJ, 2002, J REFRACT SURG, V18, pS634