Khizer Muhammad A, Ijaz Umer, Khan Taimoor A, Khan Summaya, Liaqat Talha, Jamal Abdullah, Zahid Izza, Shah Hira G, Zahid Muhammad A
Ophthalmology, National University of Medical Sciences, Rawalpindi, PAK.
Ophthalmology, Armed Forces Institute of Ophthalmology, Rawalpindi, PAK.
Cureus. 2022 Oct 27;14(10):e30747. doi: 10.7759/cureus.30747. eCollection 2022 Oct.
Introduction Color vision testing was first seen as a parameter to be tested in the 1700s. Nowadays, it is a well-known phenomenon with significant quality-of-life implications. Structures involved in color vision include the lens, pupil, retinal cone photopigments, and several photoreceptor processes that translate the incoming spectrum of different light wavelengths into a processed colored image. An initial color vision assessment was made simply by comparing the color perception of the individual to that of the examiner. The most commonly used tools to screen for color vision defects today are color plates, such as the Ishihara color plates. In the modern age, smartphones have evolved to become an essential part of our everyday lives with applications such as Eye Handbook, which allow easier access to color vision testing using color plates displayed on smartphone screens. In this study, we compared color vision testing on Android and iOS devices to the standard Ishihara booklet. Materials and methods A cross-sectional validation study was performed on patients presenting to the Armed Forces Institute of Ophthalmology, Rawalpindi, Pakistan for six months. The sample size collected was 162 with a 95% confidence interval. The age range of the sample population was kept at 12-70 years. A patient was selected for participation in the study, and a color vision assessment was performed using the Ishihara color plates and Android and iOS smartphones. The collected data was then entered into IBM SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) Statistics 25 for analysis, with the p-value being kept at 0.05. Results The sample size was 162, with the gender distribution being predominantly male (69.14%). The average age of the participants was 35.94 ( = 12.04). The result of the two-tailed paired sample z-testwas not significant based on a p-value of 0.565, indicating the null hypothesis cannot be rejected. This finding suggests the difference between the mean of Ishihara and the mean of the iPhone was not significantly different from zero. Similar results were found for comparisons between Android smartphones and the Ishihara booklet. Conclusions Previous studies conducted showed nearly 60% of subjects with normal color vision correctly identified all colors on standard Ishihara color plates. The two-tailed paired sample t-test conducted in our study showed no significant difference between either of the smartphone groups (iPhone or Android) and the Ishihara booklet group, indicating that smartphones present a viable alternative to standard Ishihara booklet testing. However, there are certain limitations to our study. Different types of smartphone screens present a challenge in standardization while testing color vision, something that is not a problem when using the Ishihara booklet. However, smartphones are more widely available, more versatile, and present far greater ease of access. Both these factors should be considered when comparing the two in future studies.
色觉测试最初在18世纪被视为一项待测试的参数。如今,它已是一个众所周知的现象,对生活质量有着重大影响。涉及色觉的结构包括晶状体、瞳孔、视网膜视锥色素以及几个光感受器过程,这些过程将不同光波长的入射光谱转化为经过处理的彩色图像。最初的色觉评估只是简单地将个体的颜色感知与检查者的进行比较。如今用于筛查色觉缺陷最常用的工具是色板,如石原氏色板。在现代,智能手机已发展成为我们日常生活中不可或缺的一部分,像《眼科手册》这样的应用程序,使人们能够更轻松地通过智能手机屏幕上显示的色板进行色觉测试。在本研究中,我们将安卓和iOS设备上的色觉测试与标准的石原氏手册进行了比较。
对在巴基斯坦拉瓦尔品第武装部队眼科研究所就诊六个月的患者进行了一项横断面验证研究。收集的样本量为162,置信区间为95%。样本人群的年龄范围保持在12 - 70岁。选择一名患者参与研究,使用石原氏色板以及安卓和iOS智能手机进行色觉评估。然后将收集到的数据输入IBM SPSS(社会科学统计软件包)统计25进行分析,p值保持在0.05。
样本量为162,性别分布以男性为主(69.14%)。参与者的平均年龄为35.94(标准差 = 12.04)。基于p值0.565,双尾配对样本z检验的结果不显著,表明原假设不能被拒绝。这一发现表明石原氏测试结果的均值与iPhone测试结果的均值之差与零没有显著差异。安卓智能手机与石原氏手册的比较也发现了类似结果。
先前进行的研究表明,近60%色觉正常的受试者能正确识别标准石原氏色板上的所有颜色。我们研究中进行的双尾配对样本t检验表明,智能手机组(iPhone或安卓)与石原氏手册组之间均无显著差异,这表明智能手机是标准石原氏手册测试的可行替代方案。然而,我们的研究存在一定局限性。在测试色觉时,不同类型的智能手机屏幕在标准化方面存在挑战,而使用石原氏手册时则不存在这个问题。然而,智能手机更广泛可用、更具通用性且使用起来更加便捷。在未来的研究中比较这两者时,应考虑到这两个因素。