11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluating the performance of the quick CSF method in detecting contrast sensitivity function changes

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The contrast sensitivity function (CSF) has shown promise as a functional vision endpoint for monitoring the changes in functional vision that accompany eye disease or its treatment. However, detecting CSF changes with precision and efficiency at both the individual and group levels is very challenging. By exploiting the Bayesian foundation of the quick CSF method (Lesmes, Lu, Baek, & Albright, 2010), we developed and evaluated metrics for detecting CSF changes at both the individual and group levels. A 10-letter identification task was used to assess the systematic changes in the CSF measured in three luminance conditions in 112 naïve normal observers. The data from the large sample allowed us to estimate the test–retest reliability of the quick CSF procedure and evaluate its performance in detecting CSF changes at both the individual and group levels. The test–retest reliability reached 0.974 with 50 trials. In 50 trials, the quick CSF method can detect a medium 0.30 log unit area under log CSF change with 94.0% accuracy at the individual observer level. At the group level, a power analysis based on the empirical distribution of CSF changes from the large sample showed that a very small area under log CSF change (0.025 log unit) could be detected by the quick CSF method with 112 observers and 50 trials. These results make it plausible to apply the method to monitor the progression of visual diseases or treatment effects on individual patients and greatly reduce the time, sample size, and costs in clinical trials at the group level.

          Related collections

          Most cited references40

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The threshold contrast sensitivity function in strabismic amblyopia: evidence for a two type classification.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements?

            To determine the sensitivity to change and specificity achieved when published test-retest variability (TRV) data are used to determine whether measured changes in ETDRS logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) visual acuity reflect true clinical change or are attributable to measurement error alone. Various degrees of change in visual acuity were simulated in a group of normal subjects by adjusting test difficulty through manipulation of viewing distance. Sensitivity to simulated change and specificity were determined with change criteria derived from published Bland-Altman 95% ranges for TRV. The relationship between viewing distance and measured acuity was as predicted theoretically. Simulated acuity change of 0.2 logMAR (two lines of letters) or greater can be reliably distinguished from no change (both sensitivity and specificity >95%) with the ETDRS chart, but a change of 0.1 logMAR or less cannot. The use of 95% ranges for TRV to establish the smallest measured visual acuity change that can be reliably detected ensures a high specificity but does not take account of sensitivity. Use of change criteria derived from published 95% ranges results in a sensitivity of approximately 50% (assuming identical levels of TRV). Sensitivity may be improved by using a change criterion that is smaller than the minimum change sought, providing the change criterion is still at least as large as the 95% range for TRV, so that specificity is maintained. Reducing TRV allows smaller changes in acuity to be reliably detected.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Psychophysical evidence for rod vulnerability in age-related macular degeneration.

              To determine whether there is rod system dysfunction in the central retina of patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Dark-adapted sensitivity (500-nm stimulus) and light-adapted sensitivity (600 nm) were measured psychophysically at 52 loci in the central 38 degrees (diameter) of retina in 80 patients with AMD, and results were compared with those from older adult normal controls. All dark-adapted data were corrected for preretinal absorption. Mean field dark-adapted sensitivity was significantly lower in AMD patients as a group than in normal subjects. Within the AMD group were subsets of patients with normal mean dark- and light-adapted sensitivities; reduced dark-adapted sensitivities without detectable light-adapted losses; both types of losses; and, least commonly, only light-adapted losses. Regional retinal analyses of the dark-adapted deficit indicated the greatest severity was 2 degrees to 4 degrees or approximately 1 mm from the fovea, and the deficit decreased with increasing eccentricity. These psychophysical results are consistent with histopathologic findings of a selective vulnerability for parafoveal rod photoreceptors in AMD. The different patterns of rod and cone system losses among patients at similar clinical stages reinforces the notion that AMD is a group of disorders with underlying heterogeneity of mechanism of visual loss. Dark-adapted macula-wide testing may be a useful complement to the more traditional outcome measures of fundus pathology and foveal cone-based psychophysics in future AMD trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                J Vis
                J Vis
                jovi
                jovi
                jovi
                Journal of Vision
                The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
                1534-7362
                27 April 2016
                2016
                : 16
                : 6
                : 18
                Affiliations
                Article
                jovi-16-06-21 MS#: JOV-05007-2015
                10.1167/16.6.18
                4898274
                27120074
                4d393aa9-77ca-417e-8eac-85a648d42b26

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 8 September 2015
                : 24 March 2016
                Categories
                Methods

                contrast sensitivity function,specificity,sensitivity,accuracy,bayesian

                Comments

                Comment on this article