Validation of an iPad Test of Letter Contrast Sensitivity

Purpose An iPad-based letter contrast sensitivity test was developed (ridgevue.com) consisting of two letters on each page of an iBook. The contrast decreases from 80% (logCS = 0.1) to 0.5% (logCS = 2.3) by 0.1 log units per page. The test was compared to the Pelli-Robson Test and the Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test. Methods Twenty normally sighted subjects and 20 low-vision subjects were tested monocularly at 1 m using each test wearing their habitual correction. After a 5-minute break, subjects were retested with each test in reverse order. Two different letter charts were used for both the Pelli-Robson and iPad tests, and the order of testing was varied systematically. For the Freiburg test, the target was a variable contrast Landolt C presented at eight possible orientations and used a 30-trial Best PEST procedure. Repeatability and agreement were assessed by determining the 95% limits of agreement (LoA) ±1.96 SD of the differences between administrations or tests. Results All three tests showed good repeatability in terms of the 95% LoA: iPad = ±0.19, Pelli-Robson = ±0.19, and Freiburg = ±0.15. The iPad test showed good agreement with the Freiburg test with similar mean (±SD) logCS (iPad = 1.98 ± 0.11, Freiburg = 1.96 ± 0.06) and with narrow 95% LoA (±0.24), but the Pelli-Robson test gave significantly lower values (1.65 ± 0.04). Low-vision subjects had slightly poorer repeatability (iPad = ±0.24, Pelli-Robson = ±0.23, Freiburg = ±0.21). Agreement between the iPad and Freiburg tests was good (iPad = 1.45 ± 0.40, Freiburg = 1.54 ± 0.37), but the Pelli-Robson test gave significantly lower values (1.30 ± 0.30). Conclusions The iPad test showed similar repeatability and may be a rapid and convenient alternative to some existing measures. The Pelli-Robson test gave lower values than the other tests.

[1]  I L Bailey,et al.  Repeatability of Visual Acuity Measurement , 1998, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[2]  I L Bailey,et al.  Clinical grading and the effects of scaling. , 1991, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[3]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[4]  Paul H. Artes,et al.  Evaluation of the new Lighthouse Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test , 2005 .

[5]  A Pentland,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation: The best PEST , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  C W Tyler,et al.  Colour bit-stealing to enhance the luminance resolution of digital displays on a single pixel basis. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[7]  Ronald Klein,et al.  Associations of visual function with physical outcomes and limitations 5 years later in an older population: the Beaver Dam eye study. , 2003, Ophthalmology.

[8]  M. Bullimore,et al.  Improving the Reliability of the Pelli-Robson Contrast Sensitivity Test , 1991, Noninvasive Assessment of the Visual System.

[9]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[10]  Jan E. Lovie-Kitchin,et al.  Repeatability and Intercorrelations of Standard Vision Tests as a Function of Age , 2000, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[11]  J. Rabin,et al.  Measuring Resolution in the Contrast Domain: The Small Letter Contrast Test , 1996, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[12]  A. Arditi.  Improving the design of the letter contrast sensitivity test. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[13]  M. Bullimore,et al.  Assessing the reliability, discriminative ability, and validity of disability glare tests. , 1993, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[14]  S. Haymes,et al.  Glaucomatous visual field progression with frequency-doubling technology and standard automated perimetry in a longitudinal prospective study. , 2005, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[15]  Bradley E. Dougherty,et al.  An Evaluation of the Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Test , 2005, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[16]  M. Bach,et al.  The Freiburg Visual Acuity test--automatic measurement of visual acuity. , 1996, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[17]  Klaus Ehrmann,et al.  Assessment of computer generated vision charts. , 2009, Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association.

[18]  D B Elliott,et al.  The reliability of the Pelli‐Robson contrast sensitivity chart , 1990, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[19]  J. Rabin.  Small letter contrast sensitivity: an alternative measure of visual resolution for aviation candidates. , 1995, Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine.

[20]  D. Whitaker,et al.  Differences in the legibility of letters at contrast threshold using the Pelli‐Robson chart , 1990, Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians.

[21]  S. Haymes,et al.  Reliability and Validity of the Melbourne Edge Test and High/Low Contrast Visual Acuity Chart , 2004, Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry.

[22]  Denis G. Pelli,et al.  THE DESIGN OF A NEW LETTER CHART FOR MEASURING CONTRAST SENSITIVITY , 1988 .

[23]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.