Rodríguez-Vallejo Manuel, Remón Laura, Monsoriu Juan A, Furlan Walter D
Centro de Tecnologías Físicas, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain; Departamento de Óptica, Universitat de València, 46100 Burjassot, Spain.
Centro de Tecnologías Físicas, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 Valencia, Spain.
J Optom. 2015 Apr-Jun;8(2):101-8. doi: 10.1016/j.optom.2014.06.003. Epub 2014 Jul 11.
To introduce a new application (ClinicCSF) to measure Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) with tablet devices, and to compare it against the Functional Acuity Contrast Test (FACT).
A total of 42 subjects were arranged in two groups of 21 individuals. Different versions of the ClinicCSF (.v1 and .v2) were used to measure the CSF of each group with the same iPad and the results were compared with those measured with the FACT. The agreements between ClinicCSF and FACT for spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree (cpd) were represented by Bland-Altman plots.
Statistically significant differences in CSF of both groups were found due to the change of the ClinicCSF version (p<0.05) while no differences were manifested with the use of the same FACT test. The best agreement with the FACT was found with the ClinicCSF.v2 with no significant differences in all the evaluated spatial frequencies. However, the 95% confidence intervals for mean differences between ClinicCSF and FACT were lower for the version which incorporated a staircase psychophysical method (ClinicCSF.v1), mainly for spatial frequencies of 6, 12 and 18 cpd.
The new ClinicCSF application for iPad retina showed no significant differences with FACT test when the same contrast sensitivity steps were used. In addition, it is shown that the accurateness of a vision screening could be improved with the use of an appropriate psychophysical method.
介绍一种用于通过平板电脑设备测量对比敏感度函数(CSF)的新应用程序(ClinicCSF),并将其与功能性视力对比测试(FACT)进行比较。
总共42名受试者被分为两组,每组21人。使用不同版本的ClinicCSF(.v1和.v2)通过同一台iPad测量每组的CSF,并将结果与使用FACT测量的结果进行比较。ClinicCSF与FACT在每度3、6、12和18周/度(cpd)空间频率上的一致性通过Bland-Altman图表示。
由于ClinicCSF版本的变化,两组的CSF在统计学上存在显著差异(p<0.05),而使用相同的FACT测试时未发现差异。发现ClinicCSF.v2与FACT的一致性最佳,在所有评估的空间频率上均无显著差异。然而,采用阶梯式心理物理学方法的版本(ClinicCSF.v1),ClinicCSF与FACT之间平均差异的95%置信区间较低,主要针对6、12和18 cpd的空间频率。
当使用相同的对比敏感度步骤时,适用于iPad视网膜的新ClinicCSF应用程序与FACT测试无显著差异。此外,研究表明使用适当的心理物理学方法可以提高视力筛查的准确性。