3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Spatial contrast sensitivity: effects of reliability, test–retest repeatability and sample size using the Metropsis software

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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 goals of the study were to further assess contrast sensitivity to (1) investigate the existence of monocular vs. binocular differences; (2) observe possible differences between sample sizes; (3) investigate the effects of test–retest repeatability. Contrast sensitivity measurements were obtained by presenting eight horizontal sine-wave gratings (ranging from 0.2 to 20 cycles per degree). A three-up-one-down method was used to obtain thresholds with a criterion of 79.4% correct responses for each spatial frequency. The mean of 12 reversals was used for obtaining thresholds, and the two-alternative forced-choice method was used. Data were recorded in 55 naive observers from 20 to 45 years. All participants were free from identifiable ocular disease and had normal visual acuity. We observed the absence of differences on CSF for both monocular and binocular observers, as well as the absence of differences between large sample sizes. The latter investigation revealed a high degree of repeatability across time (baseline to 6 months later) with the higher test–retest for low and high spatial frequencies. Our results indicated that spatial contrast sensitivity measurements were little influenced by variables, such as binocular summation, eye dominance, sample size and time using the Metropsis test. The results obtained here have significance for basic and clinical vision science.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

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

          Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: anatomy, physiology, and perception

          Anatomical and physiological observations in monkeys indicate that the primate visual system consists of several separate and independent subdivisions that analyze different aspects of the same retinal image: cells in cortical visual areas 1 and 2 and higher visual areas are segregated into three interdigitating subdivisions that differ in their selectivity for color, stereopsis, movement, and orientation. The pathways selective for form and color seem to be derived mainly from the parvocellular geniculate subdivisions, the depth- and movement-selective components from the magnocellular. At lower levels, in the retina and in the geniculate, cells in these two subdivisions differ in their color selectivity, contrast sensitivity, temporal properties, and spatial resolution. These major differences in the properties of cells at lower levels in each of the subdivisions led to the prediction that different visual functions, such as color, depth, movement, and form perception, should exhibit corresponding differences. Human perceptual experiments are remarkably consistent with these predictions. Moreover, perceptual experiments can be designed to ask which subdivisions of the system are responsible for particular visual abilities, such as figure/ground discrimination or perception of depth from perspective or relative movement--functions that might be difficult to deduce from single-cell response properties.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Case for Using the Repeatability Coefficient When Calculating Test–Retest Reliability

            The use of standardised tools is an essential component of evidence-based practice. Reliance on standardised tools places demands on clinicians to understand their properties, strengths, and weaknesses, in order to interpret results and make clinical decisions. This paper makes a case for clinicians to consider measurement error (ME) indices Coefficient of Repeatability (CR) or the Smallest Real Difference (SRD) over relative reliability coefficients like the Pearson’s (r) and the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), while selecting tools to measure change and inferring change as true. The authors present statistical methods that are part of the current approach to evaluate test–retest reliability of assessment tools and outcome measurements. Selected examples from a previous test–retest study are used to elucidate the added advantages of knowledge of the ME of an assessment tool in clinical decision making. The CR is computed in the same units as the assessment tool and sets the boundary of the minimal detectable true change that can be measured by the tool.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The reliability of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity chart.

              Normative contrast sensitivity (CS) data were obtained using the commercially available Pelli-Robson chart from the dominant eye of 30 young (mean (+/- SD) age 22.5 +/- 4.3 years) and 42 older (mean (+/- SD) age 70.2+/- 6.7 years) subjects with normal healthy eyes. The majority of young subjects were found to have a CS of 1.80 log units or above. The majority of the older subjects were found to have a CS of 1.65 log units or above. CS results were obtained using both sides (A and B) of the Pelli-Robson chart from 30 (15 young and 15 older) of these subjects. These measurements were repeated under identical conditions, 2 weeks later. There was no significant difference between the results from sides A and B of the chart. The CS scores were shown to be repeatable to within +/- 0.15 log units or +/- 1 step. Therefore a significant change in CS score is +/- 2 steps or 0.30 log units. Slight improvements in reliability could be obtained by more careful permutation of letters on each step and a smaller step size. The restriction against these changes is the ensuing increased chart size.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Eye
                Eye
                Springer Science and Business Media LLC
                0950-222X
                1476-5454
                June 5 2019
                Article
                10.1038/s41433-019-0477-0
                7002598
                31165771
                57e29179-909d-4c64-8c99-53b632498469
                © 2019

                http://www.springer.com/tdm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article