使用模拟降低对比度阈值的当前儿科对比度敏感性评估的比较。

IF 0.8 Q4 OPHTHALMOLOGY Strabismus Pub Date : 2023-09-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-06 DOI:10.1080/09273972.2023.2250393
Paula Amores Morillo, Ashli Milling, Anna O'Connor
{"title":"使用模拟降低对比度阈值的当前儿科对比度敏感性评估的比较。","authors":"Paula Amores Morillo, Ashli Milling, Anna O'Connor","doi":"10.1080/09273972.2023.2250393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>There are limited tests of contrast sensitivity (CS) for use in children. The Hiding Heidi (HH) is suitable for all cognitive abilities, but has a ceiling effect. The Double Happy (DH) test has comparable thresholds to the Pelli Robson (PR), however the ability to detect changes in contrast has not been established. This study aims to compare contrast thresholds and agreement between HH and the DH, comparing to the PR chart in normal conditions and under reduced visual and lighting conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Tests were repeated under different conditions to reduce the contrast. Room illumination was 20,900{plus minus}2% lux in bright conditions and 2,000{plus minus}2% lux in dim conditions, both conditions were repeated with the addition of simulation spectacles to reduce the clarity of vision. Participants' CS was measured uniocularly using the PR, HH and DH tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>50 participants, age 18-62 years (mean{plus minus}standard deviation: 24.5{plus minus}7.98), were assessed. On HH 94% (<i>n</i> = 47) reached the maximum score, with the DH it was 18% (<i>n</i> = 9). The difference in reduction between conditions was smaller with HH in comparison to PR and DH, but significantly different from baseline conditions. Under dim conditions the reduction in PR and DH was -0.21 logCS units, but only -0.04 logCS for HH.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The DH test has better agreement with PR than HH and is better at detecting CS changes, highlighting the advantages of use in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":51700,"journal":{"name":"Strabismus","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of current paediatric contrast sensitivity assessments using simulated reduced contrast thresholds.\",\"authors\":\"Paula Amores Morillo, Ashli Milling, Anna O'Connor\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09273972.2023.2250393\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>There are limited tests of contrast sensitivity (CS) for use in children. The Hiding Heidi (HH) is suitable for all cognitive abilities, but has a ceiling effect. The Double Happy (DH) test has comparable thresholds to the Pelli Robson (PR), however the ability to detect changes in contrast has not been established. This study aims to compare contrast thresholds and agreement between HH and the DH, comparing to the PR chart in normal conditions and under reduced visual and lighting conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Tests were repeated under different conditions to reduce the contrast. Room illumination was 20,900{plus minus}2% lux in bright conditions and 2,000{plus minus}2% lux in dim conditions, both conditions were repeated with the addition of simulation spectacles to reduce the clarity of vision. Participants' CS was measured uniocularly using the PR, HH and DH tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>50 participants, age 18-62 years (mean{plus minus}standard deviation: 24.5{plus minus}7.98), were assessed. On HH 94% (<i>n</i> = 47) reached the maximum score, with the DH it was 18% (<i>n</i> = 9). The difference in reduction between conditions was smaller with HH in comparison to PR and DH, but significantly different from baseline conditions. Under dim conditions the reduction in PR and DH was -0.21 logCS units, but only -0.04 logCS for HH.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The DH test has better agreement with PR than HH and is better at detecting CS changes, highlighting the advantages of use in clinical practice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51700,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Strabismus\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Strabismus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09273972.2023.2250393\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Strabismus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09273972.2023.2250393","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:用于儿童的对比敏感度(CS)测试有限。隐藏的海蒂(HH)适合所有的认知能力,但有天花板效应。Double Happy(DH)测试具有与Pelli Robson(PR)相当的阈值,但尚未确定检测对比度变化的能力。本研究旨在比较HH和DH之间的对比阈值和一致性,与正常条件下以及视觉和照明条件下的PR图进行比较。方法:在不同的条件下重复试验以降低对比度。房间照明在明亮条件下为20900±2%勒克斯,在昏暗条件下为2000±2%勒克司,在添加模拟眼镜的情况下重复这两种条件以降低视觉清晰度。参与者的CS使用PR、HH和DH测试进行单眼测量。结果:50名参与者,年龄18-62岁 年(平均值±标准差:24.5±7.98)。在HH 94%(n = 47)达到最大得分,DH为18%(n = 9) 。与PR和DH相比,HH条件下的减少差异较小,但与基线条件显著不同。在昏暗条件下,PR和DH的降低为-0.21 logCS单位,但HH仅为-0.04 logCS。结论:DH测试与PR的一致性比HH更好,更能检测CS的变化,突出了在临床实践中使用的优势。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparison of current paediatric contrast sensitivity assessments using simulated reduced contrast thresholds.

Purpose: There are limited tests of contrast sensitivity (CS) for use in children. The Hiding Heidi (HH) is suitable for all cognitive abilities, but has a ceiling effect. The Double Happy (DH) test has comparable thresholds to the Pelli Robson (PR), however the ability to detect changes in contrast has not been established. This study aims to compare contrast thresholds and agreement between HH and the DH, comparing to the PR chart in normal conditions and under reduced visual and lighting conditions.

Methods: Tests were repeated under different conditions to reduce the contrast. Room illumination was 20,900{plus minus}2% lux in bright conditions and 2,000{plus minus}2% lux in dim conditions, both conditions were repeated with the addition of simulation spectacles to reduce the clarity of vision. Participants' CS was measured uniocularly using the PR, HH and DH tests.

Results: 50 participants, age 18-62 years (mean{plus minus}standard deviation: 24.5{plus minus}7.98), were assessed. On HH 94% (n = 47) reached the maximum score, with the DH it was 18% (n = 9). The difference in reduction between conditions was smaller with HH in comparison to PR and DH, but significantly different from baseline conditions. Under dim conditions the reduction in PR and DH was -0.21 logCS units, but only -0.04 logCS for HH.

Conclusion: The DH test has better agreement with PR than HH and is better at detecting CS changes, highlighting the advantages of use in clinical practice.

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
Strabismus
Strabismus OPHTHALMOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Approach to abnormal head posture. Management of traumatic incomplete lacerating rectus muscle injuries using multimodal imaging approach (ASOCT and CT/MRI). The effect of post-anesthetic administration of dexmedetomidine versus remifentanil on postoperative agitation of strabismus surgery in children: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. Association of smartphones use, ocular symptoms and binocular dysfunctions in adolescents: a hospital-based cross-sectional study. Disconjugacies of saccade duration and trajectories in strabismus.
×
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