Advertisement

International Ophthalmology

, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 2101–2115 | Cite as

A novel and cheap method to correlate subjective and objective visual acuity by using the optokinetic response

  • Carlo Aleci
  • Martina Scaparrotti
  • Sabrina Fulgori
  • Lorenzo Canavese
Original Paper
  • 94 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To describe a novel optokinetic visual acuity estimator (Oktotype) and to report the preliminary results obtained in poorly and non-collaborative subjects.

Methods

Eleven series of symbols arranged horizontally and moving from left to right at a constant rate were displayed. In each sequence, the size of the stimuli was reduced logarithmically. By using this paradigm, the objective visual acuity was computed in 26 normal subjects as the minimum size of the symbols able to evoke the optokinetic response. In the preliminary phase, three contrast levels were tested, with white noise added to the first five sequences so as to normalize the overestimate found at the lower-half range of the acuity scale. Subsequently, the correspondence between subjective and objective visual acuity was compared in 10 poorly collaborative subjects, and the agreement between optokinetic and Teller visual acuity was measured in six non-collaborative subjects.

Results

The best agreement is provided by the minimum contrast level (20%) (R 2 = 0.74). The correspondence between the two techniques is satisfying both in the normal and in the poorly collaborative sample (concordance correlation coefficient: 0.85 and 0.83, respectively). In the non-collaborative group, the concordance correlation coefficient between Teller acuity and OKVA ranged between 0.79 (test) and 0.85 (retest). Test–retest reliability was very good for the Oktotype (K: 0.82), and better than the Teller test (K = 0.71), even if it was lower compared to Snellen acuity (K = 0.95).

Conclusion

The Oktotype seems promising to predict Snellen visual acuity in normal and poorly collaborative subjects.

Keywords

Agreement Non-collaborative patients Oktotype Optokinetic nystagmus Teller cards Test–retest reliability Visual acuity 

Notes

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge, or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    West SK, Munoz B, Rubin GS, Schein OD, Bandeen-Roche K, Zeger S, German PS, Fried LP (1997) Function and visua impairment in a population-based study of older adults. Opthalmol Vis Sci 38:72–82Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lam BL, Christ SL, Zheng DD, West SK, Munoz BE, Swenor BK, Lee DJ (2013) Longitudinal relationships among visual acuity and tasks of everyday life: the Salisbury Eye Evaluation study. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 54:193–200CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levenson JH, Kozarsky A (1990) Visual acuity. In: Walker HK, Hall WD, Hurst JW (eds) Clinical methods: the history, physical, and laboratory examination, vol 3. Butterworth Ed, BostonGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teller DY (1979) The forced-choice preferential looking procedure: a psychophysical technique for use with human infants. Infant Behav Dev 2:135–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    McDonald MA, Dobson V, Sebris L, Baitch L, Varber D, Teller DY (1985) The acuity card procedure: a rapid test of infant acuity. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 26:1158–1162PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McDonald M, Sebris SL, Mohn G, Teller DY, Dobson V (1986) Monocular acuity in normal infants: the acuity card procedure. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 63:127–134CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Courage ML, Adams RJ (1990) Visual acuity assessment from birth to three years using the acuity card procedure: cross-sectional and longitudinal samples. Optom Vis Sci 67:713–718CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fielder AR, Dobson V, Moseley MJ, Mayer DL (1992) Preferential looking-clinical lessons. Ophthalmic Paediatr Genet 13:101–110CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tyler CW, Apkarian P, Levi DM, Nakayama K (1979) Rapid assessment of visual function: an electronic sweep technique for the pattern visual evoked potential. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 18:703–713PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bach M, Maurer JP, Wolf ME (2008) Visual evoked potential-based acuity assessment in normal vision, artificially degraded vision, and in patients. Br J Ophthalmol 92:396–403CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steele M, Seiple WH, Carr RE, Klug R (1989) The clinical utility of visual-evoked potential acuity testing. Am J Ophthalmol 108:572–577CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heine S, Rüther K, Isensee J, Zrenner E (1999) Clinical significance of objective vision assessment using visually evoked cortical potentials induced by rapid pattern sequences of different spatial frequency. Klin Monbl Augenheilk 215:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nakamura A, Akio T, Matsuda E, Wakami Y (2001) Pattern visual evoked potentials in malingering. J Neuroophthalmol 21:42–45CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gundiogan FC, Sobaci G, Bayer A (2007) Pattern visual evoked potentials in the assessment of visual acuity in malingering. Ophthalmology 114:2332–2337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jeon J, Oh S, Kyung S (2012) Assessment of visual disability using visual evoked potentials. BMC Ophthalmol 12:36CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ridder VH, Tong A, Floresca T (2012) Reliability of acuities determined with the sweep visual evoked potential (sVEP). Doc Ophthalmol 124:99–107CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kurtenbach A, Langrová H, Messias A, Zrenner E, Jägle H (2013) A comparison of the performance of three visual evoked potential-based methods to estimate visual acuity. Doc Ophthalmol 126:45–56CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Almoqbel F, Leat SJ, Irving E (2008) The technique, validity and clinical use of the sweep VEP. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 28:393–403CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kothari R, Bokariya P, Singh S, Singh R (2016) A Comprehensive review on methodologies employed for visual evoked potentials. Scientifica. doi: 10.1155/2016/9852194 (9852194) CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Millodot M, Harper P (1969) Measure of visual acuity by means of eye movements. Optom Vis Sci 46:938–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim MS, Choi YS, Lu WN, Lee K, Hwang GM, Wee WR, Lee JH (2000) The development of an objective test for visual acuity assessment using optokinetic nystagmus stimuli presented head-mounted display: sreohan objective visual acuity test. J Korean Ophthalmol Soc 41:871–878Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shin YJ, Park KH, Hwang JM, Wee WR, Lee JH, Lee IB (2006) Objective measurement of visual acuity by optokinetic response determination in patients with ocular diseases. Am J Ophthalmol 141:327–332CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wester ST, Rizzo JF, Balkwill MD, Wall C (2007) Optokinetic nystagmus as a measure of visual function in severely visually impaired patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 48:4542–4548CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hyon JY, Yeo HE, Seo J, Lee IB, Lee JH, Jeong-Min Hwang J (2010) Objective measurement of distance visual acuity determined by computerized optokinetic nystagmus test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 51:752–755CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Han SB, Yang HK, Hyon JY, Seo J, Lee JH, Lee IB, Hwang J (2011) Efficacy of a computerized optokinetic nystagmus test in prediction of visual acuity of better than 20/200. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 52:7492–7497CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Han SB, Han ER, Hyon JY, Seo JM, Lee JH, Hwang JM (2011) Measurement of distance objective visual acuity with the computerized optokinetic nystagmus test in patients with ocular diseases. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 249:1379–1385CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Quinn GE, Berlin JA, James M (1993) The Teller acuity card procedure. Three testers in a clinical setting. Ophthalmology 100:488–494CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Getz LM, Dobson V, Luna B, Mash C (1996) Interobserver reliability of the Teller acuity card procedure in pediatric patients. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 37:180–187PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mayer DL, Beiser AS, Warner AF, Pratt EM, Raye KN, Lang JM (1995) Monocular acuity norms for the Teller Acuity Cards between ages one month and four years. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 36:671–685PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hertz BG, Rosenberg J (1992) Effect of mental retardation and motor disability on testing with visual acuity cards. Dev Med Child Neurol 34:115–122CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mash C, Dobson V, Carpenter N (1995) Interobserver agreement for measurement of grating acuity and interocular acuity differences with the Teller Acuity Card procedure. Vis Res 35:303–312CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mash C, Dobson V (2005) Intraobserver reliability of the Teller Acuity Card procedure in infants with perinatal complications. Optom Vis Sci 82:817–822CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hertz BG (1988) Use of the acuity card method to test retarded children in special schools. Child Care Health Dev 14:189–198CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vesely P (2015) Contribution of sVEP visual acuity testing in comparison with subjective visual acuity. Biomed Pap Med Fac Univ Palacky Olomouc Czech Repub 159:616–621CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ridder VH (2004) Methods of visual acuity determination with the spatial frequency sweep visual evoked potential. Doc Ophthalmol 109:239–247CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Millodot M, Miller D, Jernigan ME (1973) Evaluation of an objective acuity device. Arch Ophthalmol 90:449–452CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khan SG, Chen KF, Frenkel M (1976) Subjective and objective visual acuity testing techniques. Arch Ophthalmol 94:2086–2091CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Lin LI (1989) A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45:255–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Arai M, Katsumi O, Paranhos FR, Lopes De Faria JM, Hirose T (1997) Comparison of Snellen acuity and objective assessment using the spatial frequency sweep VEP. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 235:442–447CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Teller DY, McDonald M, Preston K, Sebris S, Dobson V (1986) Assessment of visual acuity in infants and children: the Acuity Card procedure. Dev Med Child Neurol 28:779–789CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Birch EE, Hale LA (1988) Criteria for monocular acuity deficit in infancy and early childhood. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 29:636–643PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bouma H (1970) Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition. Nature 226:177–178CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gorman JJ, Cogan DG, Gellis SS (1957) An apparatus for grading the visual acuity of infants on the basis of optokinetic nystagmus. Pediatrics 19:1088–1092PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Geer I, Robertson KM (1993) Measurement of central and peripheral dynamic visual acuity thresholds during ocular pursuit of a moving target. Optom Vis Sci 70:552–560CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ludvigh E, Miller JW (1953) A study of dynamic visual acuity. U.S. Naval School of Aviation Medicine. Res Report No. NM 001 075.01.01Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Marx MS, Werner P, Fridman P, Cohen-Mansfield J (1989) Visual acuity estimates in the aged. Clin Vis Sci 4:179–182Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Marx MS, Werner P, Cohen-Mansfield J, Hartmann EE (1990) Visual acuity estimates in noncommunicative elderly persons. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 31:593–596PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Eggert T (2007) Eye movement recordings: methods. Dev Ophthalmol 40:15–34CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Towle VL, Harter MR (1977) Objective determination of human visual acuity: pattern evoked potentials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 16:1073–1076PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Service of Neuro-OphthalmologyUniversity of Turin, Turin Ophthalmic HospitalTurinItaly

Personalised recommendations