publication . Other literature type . Article . 2008

Recognition versus Resolution: a Comparison of Visual Acuity Results Using Two Alternative Test Chart Optotype

Jonathan S. Pointer;
Open Access English
  • Published: 01 Jan 2008
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify the difference between recognition (letter) and resolution (Landolt) visual acuity (VA) in a group of normally sighted subjects. Is it reasonable to assume that the two acuity measures are clinically equivalent? Methods: A pair of 6 m acuity test charts was produced: one comprised letters and the other Landolt broken rings. Construction of both charts conformed to the logMAR design format. Monocular VA was determined for the dominant eye of 300 screened and normally sighted optometric patients aged 16 to 40, each wearing an optical refractive (spectacle) correction. Results: Letter acuity was superior to Landolt acuity (P≤0.0001). The mean p...
Subjects
Medical Subject Headings: genetic structureseye diseases
free text keywords: Original Article, Landolt broken ring, optotype, recognition, resolution, visual acuity, anillo de Landolt, optotipo, reconocimiento, resolución, agudeza visual, Ophthalmology, RE1-994, Optics. Light, QC350-467, Optometry, Artificial intelligence, business.industry, business, Chart, medicine.symptom, medicine, Psychology
25 references, page 1 of 2

1. Bennett AG. Ophthalmic test types. A review of previous work and discussions on some controversial questions. Br J Physiol Opt. 1965; 22:238-271.

2. Wild JM, Hussey MK. Some statistical concepts in the analysis of vision and visual acuity. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1985;5:63-71.

3. Bailey IL, Lovie JE. New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1976;53:740-745. [OpenAIRE]

4. British Standards Institution. Test Charts for Determining Distance Visual Acuity. BS 4274:1968. London: British Standards Institution; 1968.

5. Elliott DB, Sheridan M. The use of accurate visual acuity measurements in clinical anti-cataract formulation trials. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1988;8:397-401. [OpenAIRE]

6. Pointer JS, Gilmartin B, Larke JR. The evolution of the broken ring visual acuity test figure. J Am Optom Assoc. 1980;51:741-745.

7. 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;71:6-13.

8. Sheedy JE, Bailey IL, Raasch TW. Visual acuity and chart luminance. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1984;61:595-600.

9. Raasch TW, Bailey IL, Bullimore, MA. Repeatability of visual acuity measurement. Optom Vis Sci. 1998;75:342-348.

10. van den Brom HJB, Kooijman AC, Blanksma LJ, van Rij G. Measurement of visual acuity with two different charts; a comparison of results and repeatability in patients with cataract. Doc Ophthalmol. 1995;90:61-66.

11. Wittich W, Overbury O, Kapusta MA, Watanabe DH. Differences between recognition and resolution acuity in patients undergoing macular hole surgery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47:3690-3694. [OpenAIRE]

12. Pointer JS. An optometric population is not the same as a general population. Optom Pract. 2000;1:92-96.

13. Brown B, Lovie-Kitchin J. Repeated visual acuity measurement: establishing the patient's own criterion for change. Optom Vis Sci. 1993; 70:45-53.

14. Pointer JS. Habitual versus optimal distance visual acuity. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 2008;28:457-466. [OpenAIRE]

15. Owsley C, Sekuler R, Siemsen D. Contrast sensitivity throughout adulthood. Vision Res. 1983;23:689-699. [OpenAIRE]

25 references, page 1 of 2
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue