Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli–Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli–Robson chart. Methods: Two different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli–Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week. Results: In Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. Conclusions: Computer-generated versions of Pelli–Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli–Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli–Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version.

Zeri, F., Calcatelli, P., Funaro, E., Martelli, M., Naroo, S. (2018). How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test?. INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 38(4), 1473-1484 [10.1007/s10792-017-0609-0].

How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test?

Zeri F.
;
2018

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli–Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli–Robson chart. Methods: Two different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli–Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week. Results: In Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. Conclusions: Computer-generated versions of Pelli–Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli–Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli–Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version.
Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico
Computerized-based stimuli; Contrast sensitivity; LCD systems; Pelli–Robson test;
English
1473
1484
12
Zeri, F., Calcatelli, P., Funaro, E., Martelli, M., Naroo, S. (2018). How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test?. INTERNATIONAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 38(4), 1473-1484 [10.1007/s10792-017-0609-0].
Zeri, F; Calcatelli, P; Funaro, E; Martelli, M; Naroo, S
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/367457
Citazioni
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 4
Social impact