...
首页> 外文期刊>Investigative ophthalmology & visual science >Could tolerance to blur predict inter-individual variations of neural contrast sensitivity and/or loss of contrast sensitivity due to defocus or astigmatism?
【24h】

Could tolerance to blur predict inter-individual variations of neural contrast sensitivity and/or loss of contrast sensitivity due to defocus or astigmatism?

机译:模糊容忍度能否预测由于散焦或散光引起的神经对比敏感性的个体差异和/或对比敏感性的丧失?

获取原文
           

摘要

Purpose : Existing models of contrast sensitivity (CS) are not able to predict the inter-individual variations observed in the neural CS and the effect of an optical blur. The purpose of this study is to test the hypothesis that these variations could be predicted by a measurement of tolerance to blur. Methods : We measured, using an adaptive optics device (crx1TM) and through an artificial pupil of 4.5 mm size, CS (4-alternative forced choice sine-wave grating test) at 10 and 20 cycles per degree (cpd) in two conditions. In the first one, the observera??s wavefront aberrations and accommodation were dynamically corrected (perfect correction permitting to evaluate neural CS) whereas in the second, we also added a defocus (0.75 D) or an astigmatism (1D at 20?°). While observera??s eye aberrations dynamically corrected, we measured CS as well as the tolerance to blur which was defined as the range of defocus for which the target (three 0.4 logMAR high-contrast letters) was still perceived acceptable (objectionable blur). Forty subjects aged between 20 and 60 years subdivided into four equal groups were involved. Their refractions ranged from -4 to +4D. Results : Neural CS ranged from 1.03 to 2.38 u.log (2.10?±0.27) and from 0.68 to 2.02 u.log (1.40?±0.26 u.log) respectively at 10 and 20 c/deg. Loss of CS due to defocus ranged from 0.39 to 1.33 u.log (0.92?±0.25) and from 0.21 to 1.29 u.log (0.54?±0.20) respectively at 10 and 20 cpd. Loss of CS due to astigmastism ranged from 0.10 to 0.85 u.log (0.48?±0.20) and from 0.05 to 1.01 u.log (0.44?±0.20) respectively at 10 and 20 cpd. Tolerance to blur ranged from 0.37 to 1.32 D (1.04?±0.20 D). Large inter-individual differences were observed.Age and ametropia had no impact neither on the neural CS, nor on the effect of defocus or astigmatism on CS, nor on tolerance to blur. At 10 cpd, loss of CS due to defocus (r=0.75) was correlated to the neural CS but not the loss of astigmatism. At 20 cpd, loss of CS due to defocus (r=0.75) and astigmatism (r=0.73) were correlated to the neural CS. Tolerance to blur was not correlated to the neural CS or to the loss of CS due to defocus or astigmatism. Conclusions : Large inter-individual variations of neural CS or loss of CS due to defocus or astigmatism cannot be predicted by tolerance to blur. However, the impact of defocus on CS seems to be linked to the neural CS. This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.
机译:目的:现有的对比敏感度(CS)模型无法预测在神经CS中观察到的个体间差异以及光学模糊的影响。这项研究的目的是检验以下假设:可以通过测量模糊容忍度来预测这些变化。方法:我们使用自适应光学装置(crx1TM)并通过4.5毫米大小的人工光瞳,在两种条件下以每度10和20个周期(cpd)的CS(4强制选择正弦波光栅测试)进行了测量。在第一个中,观察者的波前像差和适应性得到了动态校正(完美校正可以评估神经CS),而在第二个中,我们还添加了散焦(0.75 D)或像散(在20°C时为1D)。 。当观察者的眼像差得到动态校正时,我们测量了CS以及对模糊的容忍度,模糊容忍度被定义为散焦的范围,对于该散焦范围,目标(三个0.4 logMAR高对比度字母)仍然可以被接受(令人反感的模糊)。 40名年龄在20至60岁之间的受试者被分为四个相等的组。它们的折射范围从-4到+ 4D。结果:在10和20c / deg下,神经CS的范围分别为1.03至2.38u.log(2.10±0.27u)和0.68至2.02u.log(1.40±0.26ulog)。在10和20 cpd时,由于散焦导致的CS损失分别为0.39至1.33 u.log(0.92?±0.25)和0.21至1.29 u.log(0.54?±0.20)。在10和20cpd下,由于散光引起的CS损失分别为0.10至0.85u.log(0.48±0.20)和0.05至1.01u.log(0.44±0.20)。模糊容差范围为0.37至1.32 D(1.04?±0.20 D)。个体之间存在较大差异,年龄和屈光不正既不影响神经CS,也不影响散焦或散光对CS的影响,也不影响模糊容忍度。在10 cpd时,由于散焦(r = 0.75)而导致的CS损失与神经CS相关,但与散光的损失无关。在20 cpd时,由于散焦(r = 0.75)和散光(r = 0.73)而导致的CS丢失与神经CS相关。模糊的容忍度与神经散乱或散焦或散光引起的散失无关。结论:不能通过模糊容忍度来预测神经CS的个体间差异或由于散焦或散光引起的CS丧失。但是,散焦对CS的影响似乎与神经CS有关。这是提交给2016年5月1-5日在华盛顿州西雅图市举行的2016 ARVO年会的摘要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号