한국안광학회지 (Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society)

한국안광학회 (The Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of Under and Over Refractive Correction on Visual Acuity Performance using Two Different Charts

  • Chen, Ai-Hong (Dept. of Optometry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)) ;
  • Shah, Siti Salwa Mohamad (Dept. of Optometry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM)) ;
  • Rosli, Saiful Azlan (Dept. of Optometry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM))
  • 투고 : 2013.05.28
  • 심사 : 2013.09.14
  • 발행 : 2013.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of under and over refractive correction on visual acuity performance and the variation of the visual performance measurement using two different visual acuity charts. Methods: Ten young adults, aged between 19 and 25 years old, were recruited. Inclusion criteria: no history of ocular injury or pathology with a best-corrected visual acuity of 6/6 on dominant eye. The over and under refractive corrections were induced using minus and plus spherical ophthalmic lenses in 0.50 D steps up to 3.00 D; as well as using three axis orientations of cylindrical ophthalmic lenses ($45^{\circ}$, $90^{\circ}$ and $180^{\circ}$) in 0.50 D steps. The variation of visual acuity performance measurements was investigated using Bailey-Lovie LogMAR chart and Landolt C chart. Results: The visual acuity changes with lenses were significantly different between two charts [F = 49.15, p < 0.05 with plus spherical ophthalmic lenses and F = 174.38, p < 0.05 with minus spherical ophthalmic lenses]. The visual acuity changes with three different cylindrical axis showed no significant difference between Bailey-Lovie LogMAR chart [F = 2.35, p > 0.05] and Landolt C chart [F = 3.12, p = 0.05]. Conclusions: The over and under refractive correction affected the visual acuity performance differently. The Landolt C chart and Bailey-Lovie LogMAR chart demonstrated variation in measurements.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Chung ST, Jarvis SH, Cheung SH. The effect of dioptric blur on reading performance. Vision Research. 2007; 47(12):1584-1594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2007.03.007
  2. Dobson V. Maguire M, Orel-Bixler D, Quinn G, Ying GS, Visual auity results in school-aged children and adults: Lea Symbols chart versus Bailey-Lovie chart. Optm Vis Sci. 2003;80(9):650-654. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200309000-00010
  3. Grf M. Becker R. Determining visual acuity with LH symbols and Landolt rings. Klinische Monatsbltter fr Augenheilkunde. 1999;215(2):86-90. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2008-1034677
  4. Grimm W, Rassow B, Wesemann W, Saur K, Hilz R. Correlation of optotypes with the Landolt ring-a fresh look at the comparability of optotypes. Optom Vis Sci. 1994;71(1):6-13. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199401000-00002
  5. Hazel CA, Elliott DB. The dependency of logMAR visual acuity measurements on chart design and scoring rule. Optom Vis Sci. 2002;79(12):788-792. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200212000-00011
  6. Higgins KE, Wood J, Tait A. Vision and driving: selective effect of optical blur on different driving tasks. Human Factors. The J Hum Factors. 1998;40(2):224-232. https://doi.org/10.1518/001872098779480415
  7. Johnson CA. Vision requirements for driver's license examiners. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82(8):779-789. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000174767.13915.40
  8. Johnson CA, Casson EJ. Effects of luminance, contrast, and blur on visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci. 1995;72(12): 864-869. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199512000-00004
  9. Mann DL, Abernethy B, Farrow D. The resilience of natural interceptive actions to refractive blur. Human movement science. 2010;29(3):386-400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2010.02.007
  10. Miller AD, Kris MJ, Griffiths AC. Effect of small focal errors on vision. Optom Vis Sci. 1997;74(7):521-526. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199707000-00020
  11. Ohlendorf A, Tabernero J, Schaeffel F. Visual acuity with simulated and real astigmatic defocus. Optom Vis Sci. 2011;88(5):562-569. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821281bc
  12. Raasch TW. Spherocylindrical refractive errors and visual acuity. OptomVis Sci. 1995;72(4):272-275. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199504000-00008
  13. Radhakrishnan H, Pardhan S, Calver RI, O'Leary DJ. Unequal reduction in visual acuity with positive and negative defocusing lenses in myopes. Optom Vis Sci. 2004; 81(1):14-17. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200401000-00005
  14. Remon L, Tornel M, Furlan WD. Visual acuity in simple myopic astigmatism: Influence of cylinder axis. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83(5):311-315. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.opx.0000216099.29968.36
  15. Rossi EA, Weiser P, Tarrant J, Roorda A. Visual performance in emmetropia and low myopia after correction of high-order aberrations. J of Vis. 2007;7(8):14.
  16. Seidel D, Gray LS, Heron G. The effect of monocular and binocular viewing on the accommodation response to real targets in emmetropia and myopia. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82(4):279-285. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.OPX.0000159369.85285.21
  17. Smith G, Jacobs RJ, Chan CD. Effect of defocus on visual acuity as Measured by source and observer methods. Optom Vis Sci. 1989;66(7):430-435. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-198907000-00004
  18. Thorn F, Schwartz F. Effects of dioptric blur on Snellen and grating acuity. Optom Vis Sci. 1990;67(1):3-7. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199001000-00002
  19. Cufflin MP, Mankowska A, Mallen EA. Effect of blur adaptation on blur sensitivity and discrimination in emmetropes and myopes. Invest Ophthalmol & Visual Sci. 2007;48(6): 2932-2939. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.06-0836
  20. Chen AH, Norazman FN. and Buari NH. Comparison of visual acuity estimates using three different letter charts under two ambient room illuminations. Ind J of Ophthalmol. 2012;60(2):101-104. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.90489
  21. Raasch TW, Bailey IL, Bullimore MA. Repeatability of visual acuity measurement. Optom Vis Sci. 1998;75(5): 342-348. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-199805000-00024
  22. Van den Brom H, Kooijman A, Blanksma L, Van Rij G. Measurement of visual acuity with two different charts; a comparison of results and repeatability in patients with cataract. Documenta ophthalmologica. 1995;90(1):61-66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01203295
  23. Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Bauer J, Held R. Myopic children show insufficient accommodative response to blur. Invest Ophthalmol & Visual Sci. 1993;34(3):690-694.
  24. Subbaram MV, Bullimore MA. Visual acuity and the accuracy of the accommodative response. Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics. 2002;22(4):312-318. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-1313.2002.00037.x
  25. Charman WN. The eye in focus: accomodation and presbyopia. Clinical & Experimental Optometry. 2008;91(3): 207-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2008.00256.x
  26. Goss DA, Otte N, Young J. Accommodative responses under binocular conditions with various amounts of plus add. Journal of Behavioral Optometry. 2011;22(3):64.
  27. Anderson HA, Glasser A, Stuebing KK, Manny RE. Minus lens stimulated accommodative lag as a function of age. Optom Vis Sci. 2009;86(6):685-694. https://doi.org/10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181a7294f
  28. Keating MP. Thin lens eye models. In: Geometric, physical, and visual optics, 2nd Ed. St. Louis: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002;85-87.
  29. Cacho Martnez P, Garca Muoz A, Ruiz-Cantero MT. Treatment of accommodative and nonstrabismic binocular dysfunctions: a systematic review. Optometry. 2009;80(12): 702-716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.optm.2009.06.011
  30. Lerner N, Singer J, Jenness J. Safer drivers. Vanasse Hangen Brustlin. 2010;3:1-51.