Testing macular letter recognition ‐ reliability and influence of refraction errors

References

• Mackeben M Colenbrander, A. Mapping the topography of residual vision after macular vision loss. In: Kooijman AC, Looijestijn PL. Welling JA, van der Wildt GJ. Eds. Low Vision ‐ Research and New Developments in Rehabilitation. Amsterdam: IOS Press, 1994. p 59–67.
   Google Scholar
• Mackeben M, Colenbrander A, Gofen A. Use your PC to quickly map remaining vision after foveal vision loss. In: Wall M, Wild JM. Eds. Perimetry Update 1998/1999. The Hague: Kugler Publications, 1999. p 307–316
   Google Scholar
• Mackeben M, Colenbrander A. Topographic measurements of low contrast letter recognition as a tool for diagnosis and vision rehabilitation. In: Stuen C, Arditi A, Horowitz A, Lang B, Rosenthal Seidman K. Eds. Vision Rehabilitation. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 2000. p 158–160.
   Google Scholar
• Trauzettel‐klosinski S, Biermann P, Hahn G, Weismann M. Assessment of parafoveal function in maculopathy: a comparison between the Macular Mapping Test and kinetic manual perimetry. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2003; 241: 988–995.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hahn GA, Messias A, Mackeben M, Dietz K, Hoewarth K, Hyvärinen L, Leinonen M et al. Parafoveal letter recognition at reduced contrast in normal aging and in patients with risk factors for AMD. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2009; 247: 43–51.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al‐serafi M, Markowitz SN, Reyes, SV. Scotoma displacement in the macular mapping test as a tool for identification of preferred retinal loci. Can J Ophthalmol 2012; 47: 62–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenbarth W, Feucht N, Enders C, Mackeben M, Maier M, Lohmann C.P. Parafoveal contributions to retinal function measurements during anti‐vascular endothelial growth factor therapy in age‐related macular degeneration. Can J Ophthalmol 2015; 50: 37–43.
   Google Scholar
• Donders FC. On the Anomalies of Accommodation and Refraction of the Eye. London: New Sydenham Society, 1864.
   Google Scholar
• Colenbrander A. The historical evolution of visual acuity measurement. Vis Impair Res 2008;10: 57–66.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey IL, Lovie‐kitchin JE. Visual acuity testing. From the laboratory to the clinic. Vision Res 2013; 90: 2–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chung ST, Jarvis SH, Cheung SH. The effect of dioptric blur on reading performance. Vision Res 2007; 47: 1584–1594.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wood JM. How does vision drive driving performance? Optom Vis Sci 2005; 82: 639–640.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Register SJ. Visual acuity and stereopsis screening results in an underserved community. Optometry 2010; 81: 200–204.
   Google Scholar
• Sadowski B, Grüb A, Trauzettel‐klosinski S. Reading ability and need for reading eye movement control during reading.
   Google Scholar
• Rayner K. Eye Movements in Reading. New York: Academic Press, 1983. P 970120.
   Google Scholar
• Deubel H, Schneider WX. Saccade target selection and object recognition: evidence for a common attentional mechanism. Vision Res 1996; 36: 1827–1837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thorn F, Schwartz F. Effects of dioptric blur on Snellen and grating acuity. Optom Vis Sci 1990; 67: 3–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson CA, Casson EJ. Effects of luminance, contrast, and blur on visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 1995; 72: 864–869.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dehnert A, Bach M, Heinrich SP. Subjective visual acuity with simulated defocus. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2011; 31: 625–631.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fankhauser F, Enoch JM. The effects of blur upon perimetric thresholds. a method for determining a quantitative estimate of retinal contour. Arch Ophthalmol 1962; 68: 240–251.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Collin HB, Banks R, Dimitratos M, The effect of refractive error on perimetric thresholds using the Humphrey Field Analyser. Clin Exp Optom 1993; 76: 162–171.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson RS, Mcdowell DR, Ennis FA. Effect of localized defocus on detection thresholds for different sized targets in the fovea and periphery. Acta Ophthalmol Scand 2001; 79: 60–63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wang YZ, Thibos LN, Bradley A. Effects of refractive error on detection acuity and resolution acuity in peripheral vision. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1997; 38: 2134–2143.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah N, Dakin SC, Anderson RS. Effect of optical defocus on detection and recognition of vanishing optotype letters in the fovea and periphery. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2012; 53: 7063–7070.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutlukan E. The effect of refractive blur on the detection sensitivity to light offsets in the central visual field. Acta Ophthalmol (Copenh) 1994; 72: 189–194.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisenbarth W, Richert J, Mackeben M. Influence of refractive errors in letter recognition in the central visual field. ARVO Abstracts 2012, #3609.
   Google Scholar
• Raasch TW, Bailey IL, Bullimore MA. Repeatability of visual acuity measurement. Optom Vis Sci 1998; 75: 342–348.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruamviboonsuk P, Tiensuwan M, Kunawut C, Masayaanon P. Repeatability of an automated Landolt C test, compared with the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) chart testing. Am J Ophthalmol 2003; 136: 662–669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pointer JS. Recognition versus resolution: a comparison of visual acuity results using two alternative test chart optotypes. J Optom 2008; 1: 65–70.
   Google Scholar
• Mackeben M. Topographic mapping of residual vision by computer. J Vis Impair Blind 2008; 102: 649–655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• González EG, Teichman J, Lillakas L, Markowitz SN, Steinbach MJ. Fixation stability using radial gratings in patients with age‐related macular degeneration. Can J Ophthalmol 2006; 41: 333–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bellmann C, Feely M, Crossland MD, Kabanarou SA, Rubin GS. Fixation stability using central and pericentral fixation targets in patients with age‐related macular degeneration. Ophthalmology 2004; 111: 2265–22670.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sloan LL. New test charts for the measurement of visual acuity at far and near distances. Am J Ophthalmol 1959; 48: 807–813.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strasburger H, Harvey LO. Rentschler I. Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric viewing. Percept Psychophys 1991; 49: 495.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel PJ, Chen FK, Ikeji F, Xing W, Bunce C, Da cruz L, Tufail A. Repeatability of stratus optical coherence tomography measures in neovascular age‐related macular degeneration. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008; 49: 1084–1088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1 (8476): 307–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loughman J. The statistical interpretation of the coefficient of repeatability. Paper 1. Available at: 2010 http://arrow.dit.ie/otpomoth/1
   Google Scholar
• Atchison DA. Effect of defocus on visual field measurement. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1987; 7: 259–265.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heuer DK, Anderson DR, Feuer WJ, Gressel MG. The influence of refraction accuracy on automated perimetric threshold measurements. Ophthalmology 1987; 94: 1550–1553.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herse PR, Bedell HE. Contrast sensitivity for letter and grating targets under various stimulus conditions. Optom Vis Sci 1989; 66: 774–781.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinreb RN, Perlman JP. The effect of refractive correction on automated perimetric thresholds. Am J Ophthalmol 1986; 101: 706–709.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marmor MF, Gawande A. Effect of visual blur on contrast sensitivity Clinical implications. Ophthalmology 1988; 95: 139–143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akutsu H, Bedell HE, Patel SS. Recognition thresholds for letters with simulated dioptric blur. Optom Vis Sci 2000; 77: 524–530.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bittner AK, Iftikhar MH, Dagnelie G. Test‐retest, within‐visit variability of Goldmann visual fields in retinitis pigmentosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2011; 52: 8042–8046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith G. Refraction and visual acuity measurements: what are their measurement uncertainties? Clin Exp Optom 2006; 89: 66–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar