Does visual acuity predict visual preference in progressive addition lenses?

IF 2.2 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY Journal of Optometry Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.optom.2022.04.003
Richard Legras , Marc Vincent , Gildas Marin
{"title":"Does visual acuity predict visual preference in progressive addition lenses?","authors":"Richard Legras ,&nbsp;Marc Vincent ,&nbsp;Gildas Marin","doi":"10.1016/j.optom.2022.04.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>We aimed to determine if visual acuity (VA) could differentiate the quality of vision with two ophthalmic lenses with unwanted astigmatism.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Twenty presbyopic subjects (48 to 62 years old; VA better than 0.0 logMAR) graded the magnitude of their preference between two progressive addition lenses (plano addition 2.00D) and their visual acuities were measured with both lenses at various eccentricities from -12 to +12 mm from the near vision point every 3 mm in controlled conditions.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The Lens with the least peripheral astigmatism was preferred by 75% of the subjects. VA measured at the near vision point was statistically worse (p&lt;0.01) with this lens whereas the contrary was observed in the periphery (± 12 and -9 mm of eccentricity). The Friedman test shows that the eccentricity (p&lt;0.001) has a significant effect on visual acuity. However, the lens did not show any significant effect (p=0.76). The choice of the favorite lens was predicted for only 35% when considering central VA (up to 6mm) and 80% of the subjects when considering peripheral VA (9 to 12mm). However, the magnitude of the difference could be predicted by peripheral VA in only 60% of the subjects.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>High contrast Visual acuity was clearly able to differentiate the 2 lens designs tested in our experiment. However, even under the controlled conditions of this study, it was not possible to predict the quality of vision, as measured by a subjective appreciation, through progressive addition lenses at various eccentricities from the near vision with an addition of 2.0D.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46407,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Optometry","volume":"16 2","pages":"Pages 91-99"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10104795/pdf/main.pdf","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Optometry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S188842962200019X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Purpose

We aimed to determine if visual acuity (VA) could differentiate the quality of vision with two ophthalmic lenses with unwanted astigmatism.

Methods

Twenty presbyopic subjects (48 to 62 years old; VA better than 0.0 logMAR) graded the magnitude of their preference between two progressive addition lenses (plano addition 2.00D) and their visual acuities were measured with both lenses at various eccentricities from -12 to +12 mm from the near vision point every 3 mm in controlled conditions.

Results

The Lens with the least peripheral astigmatism was preferred by 75% of the subjects. VA measured at the near vision point was statistically worse (p<0.01) with this lens whereas the contrary was observed in the periphery (± 12 and -9 mm of eccentricity). The Friedman test shows that the eccentricity (p<0.001) has a significant effect on visual acuity. However, the lens did not show any significant effect (p=0.76). The choice of the favorite lens was predicted for only 35% when considering central VA (up to 6mm) and 80% of the subjects when considering peripheral VA (9 to 12mm). However, the magnitude of the difference could be predicted by peripheral VA in only 60% of the subjects.

Conclusion

High contrast Visual acuity was clearly able to differentiate the 2 lens designs tested in our experiment. However, even under the controlled conditions of this study, it was not possible to predict the quality of vision, as measured by a subjective appreciation, through progressive addition lenses at various eccentricities from the near vision with an addition of 2.0D.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
视力是否能预测对渐进附加镜片的视觉偏好?
目的我们的目的是确定视力(VA)是否可以区分两种不需要散光的眼科镜片的视觉质量。方法20例老花眼受试者(48~62岁;VA优于0.0logMAR)对两种渐进式附加镜(平面附加2.00D)的偏好程度进行分级,并在对照条件下,以距近视点-12mm~+12mm的不同偏心度测量两种镜片的视力。结果75%的受试者首选周边散光最小的晶状体。该镜片在近视点测量的VA在统计学上更差(p<0.01),而在周边观察到相反的情况(±12和-9mm的偏心率)。Friedman检验表明偏心率(p<0.001)对视力有显著影响。然而,晶状体没有显示出任何显著的效果(p=0.76)。当考虑中心VA(高达6mm)时,选择最喜欢的晶状体的预测仅为35%,当考虑外围VA(9至12mm)时,80%的受试者被预测为最喜欢的镜片。然而,只有60%的受试者可以通过外周VA来预测差异的大小。结论高对比度的视觉敏锐度能够清楚地区分实验中测试的两种镜片设计。然而,即使在本研究的受控条件下,也不可能预测通过主观评价来衡量的视力质量,即通过渐进式附加透镜在不同偏心度下与近视眼进行2.0D的附加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Optometry
Journal of Optometry OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
60
审稿时长
66 days
期刊最新文献
Blue light stimulation of the optic nerve head reduces melatonin levels in rabbit posterior segment Effect of a vergence-accommodation conflict induced during a 30-minute Virtual Reality game on vergence-accommodation parameters and related symptoms Visual performance of a new trifocal intraocular lens design evaluated with a clinical adaptative optics visual simulator Analysis of patient referrals from primary care to ophthalmology. The role of the optometrist Corneal higher-order aberrations in different types of irregular cornea
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1