Measuring contrast sensitivity with inappropriate optical correction*

Comparison of refractive and visual acuity results after Contoura® Vision topography-guided LASIK planned with the Phorcides Analytic Engine to results after wavefront-optimized LASIK in eyes with oblique astigmatism

PURPOSE

To compare visual acuity and refractive results between topography-guided laser in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) planned with the Phorcides Analytic Engine (PAE) to results after wavefront-optimized (WFO) LASIK in subjects with preoperative oblique astigmatism in their manifest refraction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review of clinical results from eyes treated with topography-guided LASIK planned with PAE compared to eyes treated with WFO LASIK using the same Wavelight® excimer laser system. All included subjects had preoperative oblique astigmatism. Residual refractive error and visual acuity (uncorrected and corrected) were the measures of interest, at the visit closest to 90 days postoperative.

RESULTS

A matched data set from 100 WFO and 97 PAE eyes was extracted from clinical records. At the postoperative visit the PAE group showed lower residual refractive cylinder (p = 0.04), uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA) (-0.06 PAE vs. -0.02 WFO, p < 0.01) and distance corrected visual acuity (CDVA) (p < 0.01). The percentage of eyes with a mean refraction spherical equivalent (MRSE) magnitude within 0.25 D and 0.50 D of plano was statistically significantly higher in the PAE group (p = 0.04 and 0.01, respectively). A statistically significantly higher percentage of eyes in the PAE group had UDVA better than or equal to -0.10 logMAR (20/16 Snellen, 36% vs 22%, p = 0.04). More eyes gained CDVA after surgery in the PAE group (53% vs 32%, p < 0.01). There were five enhancements in the WFO group versus none in the PAE group, a statistically significant difference (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Visual acuity and refractive outcomes after LASIK using PAE in eyes with oblique astigmatism in their preoperative refraction were statistically significantly better than those obtained when WFO treatment was used. The number of refractive outliers and the number of retreatments were also significantly lower with PAE treatment.

Age-related normal limits for spatial vision

PURPOSE

To establish age-related, normal limits of monocular and binocular spatial vision under photopic and mesopic conditions.

METHODS

Photopic and mesopic visual acuity (VA) and contrast thresholds (CTs) were measured with both positive and negative contrast optotypes under binocular and monocular viewing conditions using the Acuity-Plus (AP) test. The experiments were carried out on participants (age range from 10 to 86 years), who met pre-established, normal sight criteria. Mean and ± 2.5σ limits were calculated within each 5-year subgroup. A biologically meaningful model was then fitted to predict mean values and upper and lower threshold limits for VA and CT as a function of age. The best-fit model parameters describe normal aging of spatial vision for each of the 16 experimental conditions investigated.

RESULTS

Out of the 382 participants recruited for this study, 285 participants passed the selection criteria for normal aging. Log transforms were applied to ensure approximate normal distributions. Outliers were also removed for each of the 16 stimulus conditions investigated based on the ±2.5σ limit criterion. VA, CTs and the overall variability were found to be age-invariant up to ~50 years in the photopic condition. A lower, age-invariant limit of ~30 years was more appropriate for the mesopic range with a gradual, but accelerating increase in both mean thresholds and intersubject variability above this age. Binocular thresholds were smaller and much less variable when compared to the thresholds measured in either eye. Results with negative contrast optotypes were significantly better than the corresponding results measured with positive contrast (p < 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

This project has established the expected age limits of spatial vision for monocular and binocular viewing under photopic and high mesopic lighting with both positive and negative contrast optotypes using a single test, which can be implemented either in the clinic or in an occupational setting.

Design and validation of a chart-based measure of the limits of spatial contrast sensitivity

PURPOSE

Current chart-based tests of spatial contrast sensitivity (SCS) with fixed or narrow frequency ranges (≤18 cycles/°) cannot characterise the limits of spatial contrast vision. Here we present the design and validation of a chart-based measure of the spatial contrast envelope.

METHODS

Following the principles of the standard visual acuity (Bailey-Lovie) and contrast sensitivity (Pelli-Robson) charts, a combined spatial-contrast and visual acuity chart was designed using a language-independent triangular symbol for a four-alternative forced-choice procedure plus chart rotation. Symbol frequencies ranged between 0.38 and 60 cycles/° spaced along 10 radial axes (0.55%-100% contrast). The chart was validated with reference to the Bailey-Lovie and Pelli-Robson charts; its reliability and sensitivity to changes in illumination, simulated cataract and blur was evaluated in healthy adults.

RESULTS

The photopic SCS function could be measured in 5.5 ± 0.5 min; thresholding around the spatial contrast resolution limit reduced completion times to ~2 min. There was good agreement with high-contrast visual acuity (difference = 0.08 ± 0.02 logMAR) and contrast-sensitivity at 1.5 cycles/° (0.13 ± 0.06 logCS). Test-retest reliability was excellent at all spatial frequencies (ICC = 0.99). Mesopic illumination or simulated cataract caused a generalised SCS loss; myopic blur reduced high-frequency sensitivity. Spatial contrast sensitivity was independent of radial axis orientation (cardinal or oblique).

CONCLUSIONS

The chart provides a time-efficient, reliable and inexpensive measure of SCS with applications in research and clinic for detecting subtle deficits in early stages of ocular and neurological conditions that often manifest at higher frequencies. It is sensitive to vision changes occurring in dim lighting and with simulated cataract and blur. The chart is available open-access for self-printing; contrast variation in print can be controlled through user calibration and/or establishing normative SCS functions using the theoretical values.

Effects of astigmatic defocus on binocular contrast sensitivity

Purpose

To determine the effects of astigmatism on contrast sensitivity (CS).

Methods

Eighteen normal volunteers (30.5 ± 6.0 [mean ± SD] years) were recruited. After correcting each refractive error by spectacles, against-the-rule (ATR) or with-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism of +1.00, +2.00 and +3.00 D was intentionally produced in both eyes, and then binocular CS was measured. The cylindrical addition of different powers (+1.00–+3.00 D) was compensated with spherical lenses so that the spherical equivalent refraction became zero in each eye. Subsequently, the above cylindrical addition was monocularly induced, and binocular CS was measured again. The relation between CS and astigmatic power, axis, and monocular or binocular astigmatism was investigated.

Results

With binocular ATR and WTR astigmatism, increases in astigmatic power significantly correlated with decreases in the area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF). With monocular astigmatic defocus, astigmatic power addition did not affect AULCSF. With binocular astigmatic defocus of high-power (+2.00 and +3.00 D), ATR astigmatism deteriorated AULCSF more than WTR astigmatism. In a comparison between binocular and monocular astigmatic defocus, CS was significantly worse with binocular astigmatic defocus than with monocular astigmatic defocus at higher spatial frequencies regardless of astigmatic power.

Conclusions

Binocular astigmatic defocus deteriorates CS depending on the amount of astigmatic power. ATR astigmatism reduces CS more than WTR astigmatism dose. In addition, binocular astigmatic defocus affects CS more severely than monocular astigmatic defocus especially at high spatial frequencies.

Visual acuity with simulated and real astigmatic defocus

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of "simulated" and "real" spherical and astigmatic defocus on visual acuity (VA).

METHODS

VA was determined with letter charts that were blurred by calculated spherical or astigmatic defocus (simulated defocus) or were seen through spherical or astigmatic trial lenses (real defocus). Defocus was simulated using ZEMAX and the Liou-Brennan eye model. Nine subjects participated [mean age, 27.2 ± 1.8 years; logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR), -0.1]. Three different experiments were conducted in which VA was reduced by 20% (logMAR 0.0), 50% (logMAR 0.2), or 75% (logMAR 0.5) by either (1) imposing positive spherical defocus, (2) imposing positive and negative astigmatic defocus in three axes (0, 45, and 90°), and (3) imposing cross-cylinder defocus in the same three axes as in (2).

RESULTS

Experiment (1): there were only minor differences in VA with simulated and real positive spherical defocus. Experiment (2): simulated astigmatic defocus reduced VA twice as much as real astigmatic defocus in all tested axes (p < 0.01 in all cases). Experiment (3): simulated cross-cylinder defocus reduced VA much more than real cross-cylinder defocus (p < 0.01 in all cases), similarly for all three tested axes.

CONCLUSIONS

The visual system appears more tolerant against "real" spherical, astigmatic, and cross-cylinder defocus than against "simulated" blur. Possible reasons could be (1) limitations in the modeling procedures to simulate defocus, (2) higher ocular aberrations, and (3) fluctuations of accommodation. However, the two optical explanations (2) and (3) cannot account for the magnitude of the effect, and (1) was carefully analyzed. It is proposed that something may be special about the visual processing of real astigmatic and cross-cylinder defocus-because they have less effect on VA than simulations predict.