Mobile app Aston contrast sensitivity test

24Citations
Citations of this article
62Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Contrast detection is an important aspect of the assessment of visual function; however, clinical tests evaluate limited spatial frequencies and contrasts. This study validates the accuracy and inter-test repeatability of a swept-frequency near and distance mobile app Aston contrast sensitivity test, which overcomes this limitation compared to traditional charts. METHOD: Twenty subjects wearing their full refractive correction underwent contrast sensitivity testing on the new near application (near app), distance app, CSV-1000 and Pelli-Robson charts with full correction and with vision degraded by 0.8 and 0.2 Bangerter degradation foils. In addition repeated measures using the 0.8 occluding foil were taken. RESULTS: The mobile apps (near more than distance, p = 0.005) recorded a higher contrast sensitivity than printed tests (p < 0.001); however, all charts showed a reduction in measured contrast sensitivity with degradation (p < 0.001) and a similar decrease with increasing spatial frequency (interaction > 0.05). Although the coefficient of repeatability was lowest for the Pelli-Robson charts (0.14 log units), the mobile app charts measured more spatial frequencies, took less time and were more repeatable (near: 0.26 to 0.37 log units; distance: 0.34 to 0.39 log units) than the CSV-1000 (0.30 to 0.93 log units). The duration to complete the CSV-1000 was 124 ± 37 seconds, Pelli-Robson 78 ± 27 seconds, near app 53 ± 15 seconds and distance app 107 ± 36 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: While there were differences between charts in contrast levels measured, the new Aston near and distance apps are valid, repeatable and time-efficient method of assessing contrast sensitivity at multiple spatial frequencies.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kingsnorth, A., Drew, T., Grewal, B., & Wolffsohn, J. S. (2016). Mobile app Aston contrast sensitivity test. Clinical & Experimental Optometry, 99(4), 350–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.12362

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free