Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 30, Issue 11 , Pages 2377-2382 , November 2004

Normal values for a clinical test of letter-recognition contrast thresholds

  • Arshad M. Khanani, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA
    • ,
  • Sandra M. Brown, MD

      Affiliations

    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Sandra Brown, MD, 3601 Fourth Street STOP 7217, Lubbock, Texas 79430-7217, USA.
    • Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA
    • ,
  • Ke Tom Xu, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Health Services Research and Management, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, TX, USA

,Accepted 30 March 2004.

References 

  1. Montés-Micó R, Charman WN. Mesopic contrast sensitivity function after excimer laser photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg. 2002;18:9–13
  2. Montés-Micó R, Charman WN. Choice of spatial frequency for contrast sensitivity evaluation after corneal refractive surgery. J Refract Surg. 2001;17:646–651
  3. Holladay JT, Dudeja DR, Chang J. Functional vision and corneal changes after laser in situ keratomileusis determined by contrast sensitivity, glare testing, and corneal topography. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25:663–669
  4. Ghaith AA, Daniel J, Stulting RD, et al.  Contrast sensitivity and glare disability after radial keratotomy and photorefractive keratectomy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116:12–18
  5. O'Day D. Comment on article by Ghaith AA, Daniel J, Stulting RD, et al. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability after radial keratotomy and photorefractive keratectomy. J Refract Surg. 1998;14:361
  6. Pérez-Santonja JJ, Sakla HF, Alió JL. Contrast sensitivity after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24:183–189
  7. Boxer Wachler BS, Durrie DS, Assil KK, Krueger RR. Role of clearance and treatment zones in contrast sensitivity (significance in refractive surgery). J Cataract Refract Surg. 1999;25:16–23
  8. Chan JWW, Edwards MH, Woo GC, Woo VCP. Contrast sensitivity after laser in situ keratomileusis; one-year follow-up. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2002;28:1774–1779
  9. Montés-Micó R, España E, Menezo JL. Mesopic contrast sensitivity function after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Refract Surg. 2003;19:353–356
  10. Mutyala S, McDonald MB, Scheinblum KA, et al.  Contrast sensitivity evaluation after laser in situ keratomileusis. Ophthalmology. 2000;107:1864–1867
  11. Boxer Wachler BS, Krueger RR. Normalized contrast sensitivity values. J Refract Surg. 1998;14:463–466
  12. Mäntyjärvi M, Laitinen T. Normal values for the Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity test. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2001;27:261–266
  13. Pelli DG, Robson JG, Wilkins AJ. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clin Vis Sci. 1988;2:187–199
  14. Regan D, Giaschi DE, Fresco BB. Measurement of glare susceptibility using low-contrast letter charts. Optom Vis Sci. 1993;70:969–975
  15. Regan D, Neima D. Low-contrast letter charts as a test of visual function. Ophthalmology. 1983;90:1192–1200
  16. Zhang L, Pelli DG, Robson JG. The effects of luminance, distance, and defocus on contrast sensitivity as measured by the Pelli-Robson chart. Abstract 58. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1989;30:406
  17. Ginsburg AP. Visual Information Processing Based on Spatial Filters Constrained by Biological Data. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base: Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory; 1978;
  18. Camparini M, Cassinari P, Ferrigno L, Macaluso C. ETDRS-Fast (implementing psychophysical adaptive methods to standardized visual acuity measurement with ETDRS charts). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2001;42:1226–1231
  19. Ferris FL, Freidlin V, Kassoff A, et al.  Relative letter and position difficulty on visual acuity charts from the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study. Am J Ophthalmol. 1993;116:735–740
  20. Hoffman RS, Packer M, Fine IH. Contrast sensitivity and laser in situ keratomileusis. Int Ophthalmol Clin. 2003;43(2):93–100
  21. Maeda N, Sato S, Watanabe H, et al.  Prediction of letter contrast sensitivity using videokeratographic indices. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129:759–763
  22. Rabin J. Small letter contrast sensitivity (an alternative measure of visual resolution for aviation candidates). Aviat Space Environ Med. 1995;66:56–58
  23. Rabin J, Wicks J. Measuring resolution in the contrast domain (the small letter contrast test). Optom Vis Sci. 1996;73:398–403
  24. Rabin J. Optical defocus (differential effects on size and contrast letter recognition thresholds). Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35:646–648
  25. Blommaert FJJ, Timmers H. Letter recognition at low contrast levels (effects of letter size). Perception. 1987;16:421–432
  26. Enoch JM, Werner JS, Haegerstrom-Portnoy G, et al.  Forever young (visual functions not affected or minimally affected by aging: a review). J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999;54:B336–B351
  27. Brown SM, Khanani AM, Xu KT. Day to day variability of the dark-adapted pupil diameter. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2004;30:639–644

☆ Supported by a grant from M & S Technologies, Chicago, Illinois, USA. Software designed by Steven Nordstrom. Mr. Nordstrom is a partner in M & S Technologies, USA.

☆☆ Mr. Khanani received a research stipend at the conclusion of the study. No author has a commercial or proprietary interest in any product mentioned.

★ Rockefeller Young, PhD, assisted with the study design, interim statistical analysis, and manuscript review.

PII: S0886-3350(04)00562-0

doi: 10.1016/j.jcrs.2004.05.027

Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery
Volume 30, Issue 11 , Pages 2377-2382 , November 2004

Article Tools