Evaluation of Melbourne Edge Test contrast sensitivity measures in the visually impaired
Aim: Contrast sensitivity (CS) provides important information on visual function. This study aimed to assess differences in clinical expediency of the CS increment‐matched new back‐lit and original paper versions of the Melbourne Edge Test (MET) to determine the CS of the visually impaired. Methods...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Ophthalmic & physiological optics 2005-07, Vol.25 (4), p.371-374 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 374 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 371 |
| container_title | Ophthalmic & physiological optics |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Wolffsohn, James S. Eperjesi, Frank Napper, Genevieve |
| description | Aim: Contrast sensitivity (CS) provides important information on visual function. This study aimed to assess differences in clinical expediency of the CS increment‐matched new back‐lit and original paper versions of the Melbourne Edge Test (MET) to determine the CS of the visually impaired.
Methods: The back‐lit and paper MET were administered to 75 visually impaired subjects (28–97 years). Two versions of the back‐lit MET acetates were used to match the CS increments with the paper‐based MET. Measures of CS were repeated after 30 min and again in the presence of a focal light source directed onto the MET. Visual acuity was measured with a Bailey–Lovie chart and subjects rated how much difficulty they had with face and vehicle recognition.
Results: The back‐lit MET gave a significantly higher CS than the paper‐based version (14.2 ± 4.1 dB vs 11.3 ± 4.3 dB, p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00282.x |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67928104</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>67928104</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4342-8376f4c251f9341c7696464c132f8b7b6063fbd163c1d5252cbd39859475ec3b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkF1v0zAUhi0EYmXwF5Bvxl2Cv-1I3GxdN5A2OqQhuLMcxwF3TtLZSWn_PS6ttlt84yP5eXzOeQGAGJU4n4-rEjPJC0wxLQlCvESIKFJuX4DZ08NLMEMk15whdQLepLRCCEkp1WtwgnnFKSZ0Bn4uNiZMZvRDD4cW3rpQD1PsHVw0vxy8d2mEdujHaHKRXJ_86Dd-3MHOmTRFl6Dv4fjbwY1PkwlhB323Nj665i141ZqQ3LvjfQq-Xy3u55-Lm-X1l_n5TWEZZaRQVIqWWcJxW1GGrRSVYIJZTEmralkLJGhbN1hQixtOOLF1QyvFq7yms7Smp-DD4d91HB6nPK_ufLIuBNO7YUpayIoojFgG1QG0cUgpulavo-9M3GmM9D5VvdL78PQ-PL1PVf9LVW-z-v7YY6o71zyLxxgzcHYETLImtNH01qdnTigpBEeZ-3Tg_vjgdv89gF7eLXOR9eKg-zS67ZNu4kNek2bzx9drfXVJ7r5V5ELf0r-88KFO</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67928104</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluation of Melbourne Edge Test contrast sensitivity measures in the visually impaired</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Wolffsohn, James S. ; Eperjesi, Frank ; Napper, Genevieve</creator><creatorcontrib>Wolffsohn, James S. ; Eperjesi, Frank ; Napper, Genevieve</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[Aim: Contrast sensitivity (CS) provides important information on visual function. This study aimed to assess differences in clinical expediency of the CS increment‐matched new back‐lit and original paper versions of the Melbourne Edge Test (MET) to determine the CS of the visually impaired.
Methods: The back‐lit and paper MET were administered to 75 visually impaired subjects (28–97 years). Two versions of the back‐lit MET acetates were used to match the CS increments with the paper‐based MET. Measures of CS were repeated after 30 min and again in the presence of a focal light source directed onto the MET. Visual acuity was measured with a Bailey–Lovie chart and subjects rated how much difficulty they had with face and vehicle recognition.
Results: The back‐lit MET gave a significantly higher CS than the paper‐based version (14.2 ± 4.1 dB vs 11.3 ± 4.3 dB, p < 0.001). A significantly higher reading resulted with repetition of the paper‐based MET (by 1.0 ± 1.7 dB, p < 0.001), but this was not evident with the back‐lit MET (by 0.1 ± 1.4 dB, p = 0.53). The MET readings were increased by a focal light source, in both the back‐lit (by 0.3 ± 0.81, p < 0.01) and paper‐based (1.2 ± 1.7, p < 0.001) versions. CS as measured by the back‐lit and paper‐based versions of the MET was significantly correlated to patients’ perceived ability to recognise faces (r = 0.71, r = 0.85 respectively; p < 0.001) and vehicles (r = 0.67, r = 0.82 respectively; p < 0.001), and with distance visual acuity (both r = −0.64; p < 0.001).
Conclusions: The CS increment‐matched back‐lit MET gives higher CS values than the old paper‐based test by approximately 3 dB and is more repeatable and less affected by external light sources. Clinically, the MET score provides information on patient difficulties with visual tasks, such as recognising faces.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0275-5408</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1475-1313</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00282.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15953123</identifier><identifier>CODEN: OPOPD5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science Ltd</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biological and medical sciences ; contrast sensitivity ; Contrast Sensitivity - physiology ; Eye and associated structures. Visual pathways and centers. Vision ; Female ; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology ; Humans ; low vision ; Male ; Melbourne Edge Test ; Middle Aged ; repeatability ; Reproducibility of Results ; Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs ; Vision Disorders - physiopathology ; Vision Tests - methods ; Vision, Low - physiopathology ; Visual Acuity - physiology ; visual impairment</subject><ispartof>Ophthalmic & physiological optics, 2005-07, Vol.25 (4), p.371-374</ispartof><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4342-8376f4c251f9341c7696464c132f8b7b6063fbd163c1d5252cbd39859475ec3b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4342-8376f4c251f9341c7696464c132f8b7b6063fbd163c1d5252cbd39859475ec3b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fj.1475-1313.2005.00282.x$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fj.1475-1313.2005.00282.x$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=16876650$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15953123$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wolffsohn, James S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eperjesi, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Napper, Genevieve</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluation of Melbourne Edge Test contrast sensitivity measures in the visually impaired</title><title>Ophthalmic & physiological optics</title><addtitle>Ophthalmic Physiol Opt</addtitle><description><![CDATA[Aim: Contrast sensitivity (CS) provides important information on visual function. This study aimed to assess differences in clinical expediency of the CS increment‐matched new back‐lit and original paper versions of the Melbourne Edge Test (MET) to determine the CS of the visually impaired.
Methods: The back‐lit and paper MET were administered to 75 visually impaired subjects (28–97 years). Two versions of the back‐lit MET acetates were used to match the CS increments with the paper‐based MET. Measures of CS were repeated after 30 min and again in the presence of a focal light source directed onto the MET. Visual acuity was measured with a Bailey–Lovie chart and subjects rated how much difficulty they had with face and vehicle recognition.
Results: The back‐lit MET gave a significantly higher CS than the paper‐based version (14.2 ± 4.1 dB vs 11.3 ± 4.3 dB, p < 0.001). A significantly higher reading resulted with repetition of the paper‐based MET (by 1.0 ± 1.7 dB, p < 0.001), but this was not evident with the back‐lit MET (by 0.1 ± 1.4 dB, p = 0.53). The MET readings were increased by a focal light source, in both the back‐lit (by 0.3 ± 0.81, p < 0.01) and paper‐based (1.2 ± 1.7, p < 0.001) versions. CS as measured by the back‐lit and paper‐based versions of the MET was significantly correlated to patients’ perceived ability to recognise faces (r = 0.71, r = 0.85 respectively; p < 0.001) and vehicles (r = 0.67, r = 0.82 respectively; p < 0.001), and with distance visual acuity (both r = −0.64; p < 0.001).
Conclusions: The CS increment‐matched back‐lit MET gives higher CS values than the old paper‐based test by approximately 3 dB and is more repeatable and less affected by external light sources. Clinically, the MET score provides information on patient difficulties with visual tasks, such as recognising faces.]]></description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>contrast sensitivity</subject><subject>Contrast Sensitivity - physiology</subject><subject>Eye and associated structures. Visual pathways and centers. Vision</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>low vision</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Melbourne Edge Test</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>repeatability</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs</subject><subject>Vision Disorders - physiopathology</subject><subject>Vision Tests - methods</subject><subject>Vision, Low - physiopathology</subject><subject>Visual Acuity - physiology</subject><subject>visual impairment</subject><issn>0275-5408</issn><issn>1475-1313</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkF1v0zAUhi0EYmXwF5Bvxl2Cv-1I3GxdN5A2OqQhuLMcxwF3TtLZSWn_PS6ttlt84yP5eXzOeQGAGJU4n4-rEjPJC0wxLQlCvESIKFJuX4DZ08NLMEMk15whdQLepLRCCEkp1WtwgnnFKSZ0Bn4uNiZMZvRDD4cW3rpQD1PsHVw0vxy8d2mEdujHaHKRXJ_86Dd-3MHOmTRFl6Dv4fjbwY1PkwlhB323Nj665i141ZqQ3LvjfQq-Xy3u55-Lm-X1l_n5TWEZZaRQVIqWWcJxW1GGrRSVYIJZTEmralkLJGhbN1hQixtOOLF1QyvFq7yms7Smp-DD4d91HB6nPK_ufLIuBNO7YUpayIoojFgG1QG0cUgpulavo-9M3GmM9D5VvdL78PQ-PL1PVf9LVW-z-v7YY6o71zyLxxgzcHYETLImtNH01qdnTigpBEeZ-3Tg_vjgdv89gF7eLXOR9eKg-zS67ZNu4kNek2bzx9drfXVJ7r5V5ELf0r-88KFO</recordid><startdate>200507</startdate><enddate>200507</enddate><creator>Wolffsohn, James S.</creator><creator>Eperjesi, Frank</creator><creator>Napper, Genevieve</creator><general>Blackwell Science Ltd</general><general>Blackwell</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200507</creationdate><title>Evaluation of Melbourne Edge Test contrast sensitivity measures in the visually impaired</title><author>Wolffsohn, James S. ; Eperjesi, Frank ; Napper, Genevieve</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4342-8376f4c251f9341c7696464c132f8b7b6063fbd163c1d5252cbd39859475ec3b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>contrast sensitivity</topic><topic>Contrast Sensitivity - physiology</topic><topic>Eye and associated structures. Visual pathways and centers. Vision</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>low vision</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Melbourne Edge Test</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>repeatability</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs</topic><topic>Vision Disorders - physiopathology</topic><topic>Vision Tests - methods</topic><topic>Vision, Low - physiopathology</topic><topic>Visual Acuity - physiology</topic><topic>visual impairment</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wolffsohn, James S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Eperjesi, Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Napper, Genevieve</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Ophthalmic & physiological optics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wolffsohn, James S.</au><au>Eperjesi, Frank</au><au>Napper, Genevieve</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluation of Melbourne Edge Test contrast sensitivity measures in the visually impaired</atitle><jtitle>Ophthalmic & physiological optics</jtitle><addtitle>Ophthalmic Physiol Opt</addtitle><date>2005-07</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>371</spage><epage>374</epage><pages>371-374</pages><issn>0275-5408</issn><eissn>1475-1313</eissn><coden>OPOPD5</coden><abstract><![CDATA[Aim: Contrast sensitivity (CS) provides important information on visual function. This study aimed to assess differences in clinical expediency of the CS increment‐matched new back‐lit and original paper versions of the Melbourne Edge Test (MET) to determine the CS of the visually impaired.
Methods: The back‐lit and paper MET were administered to 75 visually impaired subjects (28–97 years). Two versions of the back‐lit MET acetates were used to match the CS increments with the paper‐based MET. Measures of CS were repeated after 30 min and again in the presence of a focal light source directed onto the MET. Visual acuity was measured with a Bailey–Lovie chart and subjects rated how much difficulty they had with face and vehicle recognition.
Results: The back‐lit MET gave a significantly higher CS than the paper‐based version (14.2 ± 4.1 dB vs 11.3 ± 4.3 dB, p < 0.001). A significantly higher reading resulted with repetition of the paper‐based MET (by 1.0 ± 1.7 dB, p < 0.001), but this was not evident with the back‐lit MET (by 0.1 ± 1.4 dB, p = 0.53). The MET readings were increased by a focal light source, in both the back‐lit (by 0.3 ± 0.81, p < 0.01) and paper‐based (1.2 ± 1.7, p < 0.001) versions. CS as measured by the back‐lit and paper‐based versions of the MET was significantly correlated to patients’ perceived ability to recognise faces (r = 0.71, r = 0.85 respectively; p < 0.001) and vehicles (r = 0.67, r = 0.82 respectively; p < 0.001), and with distance visual acuity (both r = −0.64; p < 0.001).
Conclusions: The CS increment‐matched back‐lit MET gives higher CS values than the old paper‐based test by approximately 3 dB and is more repeatable and less affected by external light sources. Clinically, the MET score provides information on patient difficulties with visual tasks, such as recognising faces.]]></abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Science Ltd</pub><pmid>15953123</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00282.x</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0275-5408 |
| ispartof | Ophthalmic & physiological optics, 2005-07, Vol.25 (4), p.371-374 |
| issn | 0275-5408 1475-1313 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67928104 |
| source | MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Biological and medical sciences contrast sensitivity Contrast Sensitivity - physiology Eye and associated structures. Visual pathways and centers. Vision Female Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology Humans low vision Male Melbourne Edge Test Middle Aged repeatability Reproducibility of Results Vertebrates: nervous system and sense organs Vision Disorders - physiopathology Vision Tests - methods Vision, Low - physiopathology Visual Acuity - physiology visual impairment |
| title | Evaluation of Melbourne Edge Test contrast sensitivity measures in the visually impaired |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-25T20%3A41%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluation%20of%20Melbourne%20Edge%20Test%20contrast%20sensitivity%20measures%20in%20the%20visually%20impaired&rft.jtitle=Ophthalmic%20&%20physiological%20optics&rft.au=Wolffsohn,%20James%20S.&rft.date=2005-07&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=371&rft.epage=374&rft.pages=371-374&rft.issn=0275-5408&rft.eissn=1475-1313&rft.coden=OPOPD5&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1475-1313.2005.00282.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E67928104%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67928104&rft_id=info:pmid/15953123&rfr_iscdi=true |