Advertisement

Establishment of a normative database and evaluation of the test-retest repeatability of the Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity test

  • Lalita Gupta
  • Michael Waisbourd
  • Carina T. Sanvicente
  • Michael Hsieh
  • Sheryl S. Wizov
  • Eric E. Spaeth
  • Jesse Richman
  • George L. Spaeth
Clinical Investigation

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate the test-retest repeatability of a computer-based contrast sensitivity (CS) test, the Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity (SPARCS) test, and to determine the effects of age and lens status on CS in normal eyes.

Study design

Prospective cross-sectional study.

Methods

The participants were assessed by use of the SPARCS test in each eye 3 times. The first 2 sessions were supervised, while the third was unsupervised. CS was determined for 5 areas of vision (central, superotemporal, superonasal, inferotemporal, and inferonasal) and combined to provide a total score. The test-retest repeatability was determined using Bland-Altman analysis and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

The total SPARCS scores (maximum possible score = 100) ranged from 86.37 (±1.09) (for those aged 20 to 29 years) to 70.71 (±2.64) (for those aged 80 to 87 years). Individuals aged between 10 and 87 years with a normal eye examination (n = 205) were enrolled. When the SPARCS scores for the first 2 sessions were compared, the ICC was 0.79, and the repeated tests were fairly equivalent (mean difference = −0.29, P = .491). The test-retest 95% limits of agreement (95% LoA) ranged from −11.07 to +11.35. When the supervised sessions were compared with the unsupervised session, the ICC was 0.80, and there was slight improvement in the CS scores during the unsupervised session (mean difference = −1.15, P = .0001). The test-retest 95% LoA ranged from −9.18 to +10.60. The CS declined with advanced age and increased cataract severity (P <0.0001).

Conclusion

Strong agreement was found between repeated SPARCS scores. Older age and increased lens opacity were associated with decline in CS in 5 areas of the visual field. The SPARCS test provides reliable and reproducible assessment of CS in normal eyes.

Keywords

Cataract Contrast sensitivity Healthy participants Normative database Repeatability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Partridge Foundation (grant # PRT13001).

Conflicts of interest

L. Gupta, None; M. Waisbourd, None; C. T. Sanvicente, None; M. Hsieh, None; S. S. Wizov, None; E. E. Spaeth, P (Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity test (SPARCS), No. 8,042,946); J. Richman, P (Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity test (SPARCS), No. 8,042,946); G. L. Spaeth, P (Spaeth/Richman Contrast Sensitivity Test (SPARCS), No. 8,042,946).

References

  1. 1.
    Arden GB. The importance of measuring contrast sensitivity in cases of visual disturbance. Br J Ophthalmol. 1978;62:198–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    West SK, Rubin GS, Broman AT, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, Turano K. How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? The SEE Project. Salisbury Eye Evaluation. Arch Ophthal. 2002;120:774–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Owsley C, Sekuler R, Boldt C. Aging and low-contrast vision: face perception. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1981;21:362–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Evans DW, Ginsburg AP. Contrast sensitivity predicts age-related differences in highway-sign discriminability. Hum Factors. 1985;27:637–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Owsley C, Sloane ME. Contrast sensitivity, acuity, and the perception of ‘real-world’ targets. Br J Ophthalmol. 1987;71:791–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaleem MA, Munoz BE, Munro CA, Gower EW, West SK. Visual characteristics of elderly night drivers in the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Driving Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012;53:5161–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    El-Gasim M, Munoz B, West SK, Scott AW. Associations between self-rated vision score, vision tests, and self-reported visual function in the Salisbury Eye Evaluation Study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:6439–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gupta L, Cvintal V, Delvadia R, Sun Y, Erdem E, Zangalli C, et al. SPARCS and Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity testing in normal controls and patients with cataract. Eye (Lond). 2017;31:753–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Richman J, Zangalli C, Lu L, Wizov SS, Spaeth E, Spaeth GL. The Spaeth/Richman contrast sensitivity test (SPARCS): design, reproducibility and ability to identify patients with glaucoma. Br J Ophthalmol. 2015;99:16–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Faria BM, Duman F, Zheng CX, Waisbourd M, Gupta L, Ali M, et al. Evaluating contrast sensitivity in age-related macular degeneration using a novel computer-based test, the Spaeth/Richman Contrast Sensitivity test. Retina. 2015;35:1465–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kuyk T, Elliott JL. Visual factors and mobility in persons with age-related macular degeneration. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999;36:303–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stavrou EP, Wood JM. Letter contrast sensitivity changes in early diabetic retinopathy. Clin Exp Optom. 2003;86:152–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rubin GS, Roche KB, Prasada-Rao P, Fried LP. Visual impairment and disability in older adults. Optom Vis Sci. 1994;71:750–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ginsburg AP, Hendee HW. Quantification of visual capability. In: Hendee WR, Wells P, editors. The Perception of Visual Information. New York, NY: Springer; 1997. p. 57–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rovamo J, Virsu V, Nasanen R. Cortical magnification factor predicts the photopic contrast sensitivity of peripheral vision. Nature. 1978;271:54–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rosen R, Lundstrom L, Venkataraman AP, Winter S, Unsbo P. Quick contrast sensitivity measurements in the periphery. J Vis. 2014;14:3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marron JA, Bailey IL. Visual factors and orientation-mobility performance. Am J Optom Physiol Optics. 1982;59:413–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leat SJ, Woodhouse JM. Reading performance with low vision aids: relationship with contrast sensitivity. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1993;13:9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ginsburg AP, Evans DW, Sekule R, Harp SA. Contrast sensitivity predicts pilots’ performance in aircraft simulators. Am J Optom Physiol Optics. 1982;59:105–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bernth-Petersen P. Visual functioning in cataract patients: methods of measuring and results. Acta Ophthalmol. 1981;59:198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vis Sci. 1988;2:187–99.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Arditi A. Improving the design of the letter contrast sensitivity test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46:2225–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hadavand MB, Heidary F, Heidary R, Gharebaghi R. A modified Middle Eastern contrast sensitivity chart. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2014;3:17–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reeves BC, Wood JM, Hill AR. Vistech VCTS 6500 charts: within- and between-session reliability. Optom Vis Sci. 1991;68:728–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pesudovs K, Hazel CA, Doran RM, Elliott DB. The usefulness of Vistech and FACT contrast sensitivity charts for cataract and refractive surgery outcomes research. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004;88:11–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Richman J, Spaeth GL, Wirostko B. Contrast sensitivity basics and a critique of currently available tests. J Cataract Refract Surgery. 2013;39:1100–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wilkins AJ, Della Sala S, Somazzi L, Nimmo-Smith I. Age-related norms for the Cambridge low contrast gratings, including details concerning their design and use. Clin Vis Sci. 1988;2:201–12.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kelly SA, Pang Y, Klemencic S. Reliability of the CSV-1000 in adults and children. Optom Vis Sci. 2012;89:1172–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bach M. The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test: variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2007;245:965–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kollbaum PS, Jansen ME, Kollbaum EJ, Bullimore MA. Validation of an iPad test of letter contrast sensitivity. Optom Vis Sci. 2014;91:291–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Amanullah S, Okudolo J, Rahmatnejad K, Lin SC, Wizov SS, Manzi Muhire RS, et al. The relationship between contrast sensitivity and retinal nerve fiber layer thickness in patients with glaucoma. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2017;255:2415–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Spaeth GL, Henderer J, Liu C, Kesen M, Altangerel U, Bayer A, et al. The disc damage likelihood scale: reproducibility of a new method of estimating the amount of optic nerve damage caused by glaucoma. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2002;100:181–5.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bland JM, Altman DG. Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet. 1995;346:1085–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Pelli DG, Bex P. Measuring contrast sensitivity. Vision Res. 2013;90:10–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rubin GS, West SK, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, Zeger S, Schein O, et al. A comprehensive assessment of visual impairment in a population of older Americans: the SEE Study. Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38:557–68.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ross JE, Clarke DD, Bron AJ. Effect of age on contrast sensitivity function: uniocular and binocular findings. Br J Ophthalmol. 1985;69:51–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mateus C, Lemos R, Silva MF, Reis A, Fonseca P, Oliveiros B, et al. Aging of low and high level vision: from chromatic and achromatic contrast sensitivity to local and 3D object motion perception. PloS One. 2013;8:e55348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cheng Y, Shi X, Cao XG, Li XX, Bao YZ. Correlation between contrast sensitivity and the lens opacities classification system III in age-related nuclear and cortical cataracts. Chin Med J. 2013;126:1430–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rubin GS, Adamsons IA, Stark WJ. Comparison of acuity, contrast sensitivity, and disability glare before and after cataract surgery. Arch Ophthal. 1993;111:56–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    McGwin G Jr, Scilley K, Brown J, Owsley C. Impact of cataract surgery on self-reported visual difficulties: comparison with a no-surgery reference group. J Cataract Refract Surgery. 2003;29:941–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mela EK, Gartaganis SP, Koliopoulos JX. Contrast sensitivity function after cataract extraction and intraocular lens implantation. Doc Ophthalmol. 1996;92:79–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dagnelie G. Age-related psychophysical changes and low vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2013;54:88–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Salvi SM, Akhtar S, Currie Z. Ageing changes in the eye. Postgrad Med J. 2006;82:581–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lovie-Kitchin JE, Brown B. Repeatability and intercorrelations of standard vision tests as a function of age. Optom Vis Sci. 2000;77:412–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Otto J, Michelson G. Repetitive tests of visual function improved visual acuity in young subjects. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014;98:383–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Van Coevorden RE, Mills RP, Chen YY, Barnebey HS. Continuous visual field test supervision may not always be necessary. Ophthalmology. 1999;106:178–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Johnson LN, Aminlari A, Sassani JW. Effect of intermittent versus continuous patient monitoring on reliability indices during automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 1993;100:76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Vesti E, Johnson CA, Chauhan BC. Comparison of different methods for detecting glaucomatous visual field progression. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2003;44:3873–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lee AC, Sample PA, Blumenthal EZ, Berry C, Zangwill L, Weinreb RN. Infrequent confirmation of visual field progression. Ophthalmology. 2002;109:1059–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japanese Ophthalmological Society 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lalita Gupta
    • 1
  • Michael Waisbourd
    • 2
  • Carina T. Sanvicente
    • 3
  • Michael Hsieh
    • 4
  • Sheryl S. Wizov
    • 3
  • Eric E. Spaeth
    • 5
  • Jesse Richman
    • 3
  • George L. Spaeth
    • 3
  1. 1.Mount Sinai HospitalNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Ophthalmology, Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  3. 3.Glaucoma Research CenterWills Eye HospitalPhiladelphiaUSA
  4. 4.New York College of Podiatric MedicineNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Independent contributorPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations