Department of Medical Education, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Nash Department of Neuroscience and Friedman Brain Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.
Optom Vis Sci. 2024 Feb 1;101(2):124-128. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000002107. Epub 2024 Jan 16.
Vision health disparities largely stem from inaccessibility to vision specialists. To improve patient access to vision tests and to expedite clinical workflows, it is important to assess the viability of virtual reality (VR) as a modality for evaluating contrast sensitivity.
This study aimed to assess the validity of a VR version of the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test by comparing its results with those of the corresponding in-office test.
Twenty-eight participants (mean ± standard deviation age, 37.3 ± 20.5 years) with corrected vision were recruited for testing on a voluntary basis with randomized administration of the in-office test followed by the VR analog or vice versa. Nineteen participants took each test twice to assess test-retest consistency in each modality. Virtual reality tests were conducted on a commercial Pico Neo Eye 2 VR headset, which has a 4K screen resolution. The environment for both tests was controlled by the participant for location and lighting.
Similar sensitivity scores were obtained between testing modalities in both the right (n = 28 participants; Wilcoxon match-paired signed rank [SR], p=0.7) and left eyes (n = 28 participants; Wilcoxon match-paired SR, p=0.7). In addition, similar test-retest scores were found for VR (n = 19 participants; Wilcoxon match-paired SR, p=1.0) or in-office (n = 19 participants; Wilcoxon match-paired SR, p=1.0) tests. Virtual reality Pelli-Robson results correlated well with in-office test results in variably diseased participants (n = 14 eyes from 7 participants, R2 = 0.93, p<0.0001).
In this pilot trial, we demonstrated that VR Pelli-Robson measurements of corrected vision align with those of in-office modalities, suggesting that this may be a reliable method of implementing this test in a more interactive and accessible manner.
视力健康差距在很大程度上源于无法获得视力专家的服务。为了提高患者接受视力检查的机会，并加快临床工作流程，评估虚拟现实 (VR) 作为评估对比敏感度的一种方式的可行性非常重要。
本研究旨在通过比较 VR 版 Pelli-Robson 对比敏感度测试与相应的办公室内测试的结果，评估 VR 版 Pelli-Robson 对比敏感度测试的有效性。
招募了 28 名参与者（平均年龄 ± 标准差为 37.3 ± 20.5 岁），他们的矫正视力正常，自愿接受测试，随机先进行办公室内测试，然后进行 VR 模拟测试，或者反之。19 名参与者在两种模式下各进行两次测试，以评估每种模式的测试-重测一致性。VR 测试在商业版 Pico Neo Eye 2 VR 耳机上进行，该耳机的屏幕分辨率为 4K。两种测试的环境都由参与者控制，包括位置和照明。
在右（n = 28 名参与者；Wilcoxon 匹配配对符号秩 [SR]，p=0.7）和左（n = 28 名参与者；Wilcoxon 匹配配对 SR，p=0.7）眼中，两种测试模式的敏感性评分相似。此外，VR（n = 19 名参与者；Wilcoxon 匹配配对 SR，p=1.0）或办公室内（n = 19 名参与者；Wilcoxon 匹配配对 SR，p=1.0）测试的测试-重测评分也相似。在不同眼病患者（7 名参与者的 14 只眼，n = 14 只眼，R2 = 0.93，p<0.0001）中，VR Pelli-Robson 结果与办公室内测试结果相关性良好。
在这项初步试验中，我们证明了 VR Pelli-Robson 矫正视力测量与办公室内模式的结果一致，这表明这可能是一种更具交互性和可及性的实施该测试的可靠方法。
