Katsumi O, Kronheim J K, Mehta M C, Matsui Y, Tetsuka H, Hirose T
Clinical Research Unit, Schepens Eye Research Institute, Boston, MA 02114.
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993 Mar;34(3):496-502.
To determine differences in preferential looking (PL) acuities using stationary and temporally modulated stripe patterns in patients with various stages of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).
We measured the PL acuities of 134 patients (ages 4 mo to 13 yr) with various stages of ROP. Patients were divided into six subgroups according to PL vision measured with stationary stripes: (1) equal to or better than 20/200 (n = 24); (2) worse than 20/200 to 20/400 (n = 10); (3) worse than 20/400 to 20/800 (n = 15); (4) worse than 20/800 to 20/1600 (n = 13); (5) worse than 20/1600 to 20/6400 (n = 26); and (6) worse than 20/6400 (n = 46; no stationary vision).
In the group with PL acuity equal to or better than 20/200, no difference in vision was apparent between the two methods. In patients with acuities worse than 20/200 to 20/400, the temporally modulated PL acuities were 0.23 octave better than the PL acuities measured with the stationary stripes. The difference increased to 0.86 and 1.12 octaves in the groups with visual acuities worse than 20/400 to 20/800 and worse than 20/800 to 20/1600, respectively. The difference in the group with PL acuities worse than 20/1600 to 20/6400 was 1.69 octaves. The 46 patients with no stationary vision detected only the temporally modulated stripes.
The results suggest that the PL acuity difference between the temporally modulated and stationary stripes increases with visual impairment. Measuring PL acuity with temporally modulated stripes is an important addition to the evaluation of severely visually impaired subjects.
确定使用静态和时间调制条纹图案测量不同阶段早产儿视网膜病变（ROP）患者的优先注视（PL）视力差异。
我们测量了134例不同阶段ROP患者（年龄4个月至13岁）的PL视力。根据静态条纹测量的PL视力将患者分为六个亚组：（1）等于或优于20/200（n = 24）；（2）差于20/200至20/400（n = 10）；（3）差于20/400至20/800（n = 15）；（4）差于20/800至20/1600（n = 13）；（5）差于20/1600至20/6400（n = 26）；以及（6）差于20/6400（n = 46；无静态视力）。
在PL视力等于或优于20/200的组中，两种方法之间的视力差异不明显。在视力差于20/200至20/400的患者中，时间调制的PL视力比用静态条纹测量的PL视力好0.23倍频程。在视力差于20/400至20/800和差于20/800至20/1600的组中，差异分别增加到0.86和1.12倍频程。在PL视力差于20/1600至20/6400的组中，差异为1.69倍频程。46例无静态视力的患者仅能检测到时间调制条纹。
结果表明，时间调制条纹和静态条纹之间的PL视力差异随视力损害程度增加。用时间调制条纹测量PL视力是对严重视力受损受试者评估的重要补充。
