Optometry and Vision Sciences - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8
-
ItemThe effect of mental load on psychophysical and visual evoked potential visual acuity(WILEY, 2022-05)PURPOSE: Under real-world conditions, tasks dependent on visual acuity may need to be performed in the presence of a mental load arising from concurrent, non-visual tasks. Therefore, measuring visual acuity concurrently with mentally demanding tasks may reflect a patient's vision more accurately. This study was designed to evaluate the impact of task-induced mental load on high contrast visual acuity, as measured using a letter chart and estimated via sweep visual evoked potentials (sweep VEP). METHODS: Visual acuity was determined using the Freiburg Vision Test, and also using sweep VEP tested stepwise, from coarse to fine, over 13 spatial frequencies, in 31 healthy participants (aged 22.4 ± 3.6 years). Recordings were repeated while participants concurrently performed an auditory 2-back task. Mental load of the n-back task was confirmed through subjective ratings. RESULTS: Visual acuity determined with the Freiburg Vision Test worsened from -0.02 ± 0.12 to 0.04 ± 0.15 logMAR under mental load (p = 0.03). Visual acuities estimated by sweep VEPs worsened from 0.38 ± 0.1 to 0.47 ± 0.1 logMAR (p < 0.001). While the slope of the VEP amplitude versus spatial frequency function steepened significantly with mental load (p = 0.01), VEP noise levels were not significantly affected (p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Visual acuity reduces significantly with a concurrent task that produces mental load. At least part of this reduction appears to be related to alterations in responses within the visual cortex, rather than being purely attributable to higher-level distraction effects.
-
ItemThe Effects of Glare on the Perception of Visual Motion as a Function of Age(ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC, 2022-09)PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of glare, that simulated the effects of oncoming vehicle headlights, and age on different aspects of motion perception in central and peripheral vision. METHODS: Twenty younger (mean age = 25 years, range = 20-32 years) and 20 older (mean age = 70 years, range = 60-79 years) visually healthy adults completed four visual motion tasks. Stimuli were presented centrally and at 15 degrees horizontal eccentricity for 2 viewing conditions: glare (continuous, off-axis) versus no glare. Motion tasks included minimum Gabor contrast required to discriminate direction of motion, translational global motion coherence, minimum duration of a Gabor to determine direction of motion (2 different size Gabors to determine spatial surround suppression), and biological motion detection in noise. Intraocular straylight was also measured (C-Quant). RESULTS: Older adults had increased intraocular straylight compared with younger adults (P < 0.001). There was no significant effect of glare on motion thresholds in either group for motion contrast (P = 0.47), translational global motion (P = 0.13), biological motion (P = 0.18), or spatial surround suppression of motion (P = 0.29). Older adults had elevated thresholds for motion contrast (P < 0.001), biological motion (P < 0.001), and differences in surround suppression of motion (P = 0.04), relative to the younger group, for both the glare and no-glare conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Although older adults had elevated thresholds for some motion perception tasks, glare from a continuous off-axis light source did not further elevate these thresholds either in central or peripheral vision. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: A glare source that simulated the effect of oncoming headlights, did not impact motion perception measures relevant to driving.
-
ItemInterventions for the Management of Computer Vision Syndrome A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis(ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC, 2022-10)TOPIC: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of interventions for treating eye strain related to computer use relative to placebo or no treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Computer use is pervasive and often associated with eye strain, referred to as computer vision syndrome (CVS). Currently, no clinical guidelines exist to help practitioners provide evidence-based advice about CVS treatments, many of which are marketed directly to patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to help inform best practice for eye care providers. METHODS: Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and trial registries, searched from inception through November 23, 2021. Eligible studies were appraised for risk of bias and were synthesized. The certainty of the body of evidence was judged using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were used when differently scaled measures were combined. RESULTS: Forty-five RCTs, involving 4497 participants, were included. Multifocal lenses did not improve visual fatigue scores compared with single-vision lenses (3 RCTs; SMD, 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.14 to 0.37; P = 0.38). Visual fatigue symptoms were not reduced by blue-blocking spectacles (3 RCTs), with evidence judged of low certainty. Relative to placebo, oral berry extract supplementation did not improve visual fatigue (7 RCTs; SMD, -0.27; 95% CI, -0.70 to 0.16; P = 0.22) or dry eye symptoms (4 RCTs; SMD, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.54 to 0.33; P = 0.65). Likewise, berry extract supplementation had no significant effects on critical flicker-fusion frequency (CFF) or accommodative amplitude. Oral omega-3 supplementation for 45 days to 3 months improved dry eye symptoms (2 RCTs; mean difference [MD], -3.36; 95% CI, -3.63 to -3.10 on an 18 unit scale; P < 0.00001) relative to placebo. Oral carotenoid supplementation improved CFF (2 RCTs; MD, 1.55 Hz; 95% CI, 0.42 to 2.67 Hz; P = 0.007) relative to placebo, although the clinical significance of this finding is unclear. DISCUSSION: We did not identify high-certainty evidence supporting the use of any of the therapies analyzed. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral omega-3 supplementation reduces dry eye symptoms in symptomatic computer users.
-
ItemMotion perception at mesopic light levels: effects of physiological ageing and eccentricity(WILEY, 2021-03)PURPOSE: To explore the differential effects of age and eccentricity on the perception of motion at photopic and mesopic light levels. METHODS: Thirty-six visually normal participants (18 younger; mean age 25 years, range: 20-31) and (18 older; mean age 70 years, range: 60-79) underwent two testing sessions, one at photopic and one at mesopic light levels. In each session, motion perception was tested binocularly at two eccentricities (centrally, and peripherally at 15° rightwards and 5° superior to the horizontal) for four motion tasks: minimum contrast of a drifting Gabor to identify motion direction (motion contrast); translational global motion coherence; biological motion embedded in noise and the minimum duration of a high-contrast Gabor to determine the direction of motion, using two Gabor sizes to measure spatial surround suppression of motion. RESULTS: There was a significant main effect of light condition (higher thresholds in mesopic) for motion contrast (p < 0.001), translational global motion (p = 0.001) and biological motion (p < 0.001); a significant main effect of age (higher thresholds in older adults) for motion contrast (p < 0.001) and biological motion (p = 0.04) and a significant main effect of eccentricity (higher thresholds peripherally) for motion contrast (p < 0.001) and biological motion (p < 0.001). Additionally, we found a significant three-way interaction between light levels, age and eccentricity for translational global motion (similar increase in mesopic thresholds centrally for both groups, but a much larger deterioration in older adult's peripheral mesopic thresholds, p = 0.02). Finally, we found a two-way interaction between light condition and eccentricity for translational global motion (higher values in central mesopic relative to peripheral photopic, p = 0.001) and for biological motion (higher values in peripheral mesopic relative to central photopic, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of tasks assessed, motion perception was reduced in mesopic relative to photopic conditions, to a similar extent in both age groups. However, because some older adults exhibited elevated thresholds even under photopic conditions, particularly in the periphery, the ability to detect mesopic moving stimuli even at high contrast was markedly impaired in some individuals. Our results imply age-related differences in the detection of peripheral moving stimuli at night that might impact hazard avoidance and night driving ability.
-
Item
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableCentral and peripheral motion perception under mesopic conditions in older adults(Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO), 2020-10-20)
-
ItemDifferential aging effects in motion perception tasks for central and peripheral vision(ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC, 2020-05)The perception of motion is considered critical for performing everyday tasks, such as locomotion and driving, and relies on different levels of visual processing. However, it is unclear whether healthy aging differentially affects motion processing at specific levels of processing, or whether performance at central and peripheral spatial eccentricities is altered to the same extent. The aim of this study was to explore the effects of aging on hierarchically different components of motion processing: the minimum displacement of dots to perceive motion (Dmin), the minimum contrast and speed to determine the direction of motion, spatial surround suppression of motion, global motion coherence (translational and radial), and biological motion. We measured motion perception in both central vision and at 15° eccentricity, comparing performance in 20 older (60-79 years) and 20 younger (19-34 years) adults. Older adults had significantly elevated thresholds, relative to younger adults, for motion contrast, speed, Dmin, and biological motion. The differences between younger and older participants were of similar magnitude in central and peripheral vision, except for surround suppression of motion, which was weaker in central vision for the older group, but stronger in the periphery. Our findings demonstrate that the effects of aging are not uniform across all motion tasks. Whereas the performance of some tasks in the periphery can be predicted from the results in central vision, the effects of age on surround suppression of motion shows markedly different characteristics between central and peripheral vision.
-
ItemInvestigating the discrepancy between MAIA and MP-1 microperimetry results(WILEY, 2021-11)PURPOSE: Previous work has suggested that sensitivities measured on the iCare MAIA and Nidek MP-1 microperimeters differ systematically, although it is unclear whether one or both devices are inaccurate. Here, we assess the discrepancy between these two instruments as well as with a rigorous reference standard. METHODS: Fifteen healthy participants underwent visual field testing on the MAIA and MP-1 microperimeters. Results were compared to a reference measure of increment thresholds on a laboratory-based, calibrated computer monitor system using the same background luminance and target size. Discrepancies were assessed as a function of eccentricity along the vertical meridian. Differences in decibels (dB) due to differences in the maximum stimulus luminance between devices were accounted for mathematically. RESULTS: The mean sensitivity measured with the MAIA was <1 dB lower than laboratory-based measures, which was statistically significant but of limited clinical importance. In contrast, the mean sensitivity measured with the MP-1 was >8 dB lower than the laboratory measures. The difference was greater for an eccentric superior retinal location, in contrast to what would be predicted if the discrepancy was due to a ceiling effect caused by the MP-1's limited dynamic range. CONCLUSIONS: While MAIA measurements showed low bias compared with our rigorously determined reference standard, the MP-1 showed large discrepancies that could not be explained purely by the limited dynamic range of the instrument. MAIA and MP-1 sensitivity values cannot be compared directly, and caution is advised when assessing absolute sensitivities or eccentricity effects in the extensive MP-1 literature.