弗莱堡视力测试(FrACT):最佳试验次数?

Michael Bach
{"title":"弗莱堡视力测试(FrACT):最佳试验次数?","authors":"Michael Bach","doi":"10.1007/s00417-024-06638-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>Visual acuity is a psychophysical threshold that we want to determine as precisely and efficiently as possible. The Freiburg Vision Test FrACT employs the automated Bayesian “Best PEST” algorithm for this purpose: the next optotype size is always selected to be at threshold based on the information acquired so far, thereby maximizing information gain.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>We assessed the test–retest Limits of Agreement (LoA, Bland &amp; Altman 1986) across 6 to 48 trials in 2 × 78 runs involving 26 participants; visual acuity (in part artificially reduced) ranged from 1.22 to -0.59 LogMAR.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>LoA exhibited a steep decline from ± 0.46 LogMAR at six trials to ± 0.17 at 18 trials; with more trials, LoA showed less change, reaching ± 0.12 LogMAR at 48 trials. LoA did not significantly change over the wide acuity range assessed here.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>These findings suggest that 18 trials represent an efficient balance between precision and burden on the participant and examiner. This observation holds for the eight response alternatives used in this study (8 Landolt C orientations) and is anticipated to apply to the ten Sloan letters as well. With only four choices (e.g., tumbling E), more trials will be necessary.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Key messages</h3><p><b><i>What is known</i></b></p><ul>\n<li>\n<p>When assessing visual acuity, a tradeoff between precision and effort is necessary.</p>\n</li>\n</ul><p><b><i>What is new</i></b></p><ul>\n<li>\n<p>A run length of 18 trials is a good compromise between effort and precision for an 8-alternative task (the Landolt C).</p>\n</li>\n<li>\n<p>With 18 trials a 95% confidence interval of ± 0.17 LogMAR for test–retest is found.</p>\n</li>\n<li>\n<p>The test–retest precision is independent of the acuity level over the 1.5 LogMAR range studied here.</p>\n</li>\n</ul>","PeriodicalId":12748,"journal":{"name":"Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Freiburg vision test (FrACT): optimal number of trials?\",\"authors\":\"Michael Bach\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00417-024-06638-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Purpose</h3><p>Visual acuity is a psychophysical threshold that we want to determine as precisely and efficiently as possible. The Freiburg Vision Test FrACT employs the automated Bayesian “Best PEST” algorithm for this purpose: the next optotype size is always selected to be at threshold based on the information acquired so far, thereby maximizing information gain.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>We assessed the test–retest Limits of Agreement (LoA, Bland &amp; Altman 1986) across 6 to 48 trials in 2 × 78 runs involving 26 participants; visual acuity (in part artificially reduced) ranged from 1.22 to -0.59 LogMAR.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>LoA exhibited a steep decline from ± 0.46 LogMAR at six trials to ± 0.17 at 18 trials; with more trials, LoA showed less change, reaching ± 0.12 LogMAR at 48 trials. LoA did not significantly change over the wide acuity range assessed here.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusion</h3><p>These findings suggest that 18 trials represent an efficient balance between precision and burden on the participant and examiner. This observation holds for the eight response alternatives used in this study (8 Landolt C orientations) and is anticipated to apply to the ten Sloan letters as well. With only four choices (e.g., tumbling E), more trials will be necessary.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Key messages</h3><p><b><i>What is known</i></b></p><ul>\\n<li>\\n<p>When assessing visual acuity, a tradeoff between precision and effort is necessary.</p>\\n</li>\\n</ul><p><b><i>What is new</i></b></p><ul>\\n<li>\\n<p>A run length of 18 trials is a good compromise between effort and precision for an 8-alternative task (the Landolt C).</p>\\n</li>\\n<li>\\n<p>With 18 trials a 95% confidence interval of ± 0.17 LogMAR for test–retest is found.</p>\\n</li>\\n<li>\\n<p>The test–retest precision is independent of the acuity level over the 1.5 LogMAR range studied here.</p>\\n</li>\\n</ul>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"volume\":\"46 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-024-06638-z\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-024-06638-z","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的视敏度是一个心理物理阈值,我们希望尽可能精确有效地确定它。为此,弗莱堡视力测试 FrACT 采用了贝叶斯自动 "最佳 PEST "算法:根据迄今为止获得的信息,选择下一个视模大小,使其达到阈值,从而使信息增益最大化。结果LoA从6次试验时的± 0.46 LogMAR急剧下降到18次试验时的± 0.17;随着试验次数的增加,LoA的变化较小,在48次试验时达到± 0.12 LogMAR。结论:这些研究结果表明,18 次试验在精确度与受试者和考官的负担之间达到了有效的平衡。这一观察结果适用于本研究中使用的 8 个备选答案(8 个 Landolt C 方向),预计也适用于 10 个 Sloan 字母。关键信息已知信息在评估视敏度时,需要在精确度和努力程度之间做出权衡。新信息对于 8 个备选任务(Landolt C)来说,18 次试验是努力程度和精确度之间的良好折衷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Freiburg vision test (FrACT): optimal number of trials?

Purpose

Visual acuity is a psychophysical threshold that we want to determine as precisely and efficiently as possible. The Freiburg Vision Test FrACT employs the automated Bayesian “Best PEST” algorithm for this purpose: the next optotype size is always selected to be at threshold based on the information acquired so far, thereby maximizing information gain.

Methods

We assessed the test–retest Limits of Agreement (LoA, Bland & Altman 1986) across 6 to 48 trials in 2 × 78 runs involving 26 participants; visual acuity (in part artificially reduced) ranged from 1.22 to -0.59 LogMAR.

Results

LoA exhibited a steep decline from ± 0.46 LogMAR at six trials to ± 0.17 at 18 trials; with more trials, LoA showed less change, reaching ± 0.12 LogMAR at 48 trials. LoA did not significantly change over the wide acuity range assessed here.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that 18 trials represent an efficient balance between precision and burden on the participant and examiner. This observation holds for the eight response alternatives used in this study (8 Landolt C orientations) and is anticipated to apply to the ten Sloan letters as well. With only four choices (e.g., tumbling E), more trials will be necessary.

Key messages

What is known

  • When assessing visual acuity, a tradeoff between precision and effort is necessary.

What is new

  • A run length of 18 trials is a good compromise between effort and precision for an 8-alternative task (the Landolt C).

  • With 18 trials a 95% confidence interval of ± 0.17 LogMAR for test–retest is found.

  • The test–retest precision is independent of the acuity level over the 1.5 LogMAR range studied here.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Digital health and wearable devices for retinal disease monitoring Safety and efficacy of laser trabeculoplasty compared to drug therapy for the management of open-angle glaucoma: systematic review and meta-analysis study Prevalence of age-related macular degeneration and retinal pseudodrusen in an elderly population. The ural very old study Interpretation of SD-OCT imaging data in real-life conditions versus standardized reading centre analysis in eyes with diabetic macular oedema or macular oedema secondary to retinal vein occlusion: 24-month follow-up of the ORCA study Freiburg vision test (FrACT): optimal number of trials?
×
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