April 2014
Volume 55, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   April 2014
Subjective and objective performance of antireflective lenses during daily activities
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Rebecca K Zoltoski
    Dean's Education, Illinois College of Optometry, Chicago, IL
  • Janice M McMahon
    Dean's Education, Illinois College of Optometry, Chicago, IL
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Rebecca Zoltoski, None; Janice McMahon, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science April 2014, Vol.55, 170. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Rebecca K Zoltoski, Janice M McMahon; Subjective and objective performance of antireflective lenses during daily activities. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2014;55(13):170.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: Antireflective (AR) lenses are designed to reduce reflections and secondary images produced by the spectacle surface. They are often recommended for specific groups of individuals and also in particular daily or work environments. We determined not only if subjects prefer AR lenses and in which environments, but also quantified the benefit of AR as related to glare and contrast sensitivity.

Methods: Two pairs of glasses (both polycarbonate with one having the addition of premium AR) were made for visually normal subjects (n=45) between the ages of 18 and 65. Using a randomized, crossover, double-masked design, each pair was dispensed for normal use over a two week time frame. Subjects were questioned regarding comfort and clarity, and tested for acuity, contrast sensitivity and glare. Each subject wore glasses in the order A-B-A. The average of the repeated results was used for analysis. At the completion of the study, the subjects kept their preferred pair of glasses. Non-parametric tests for repeated measures were used to compare the two lenses with a significance level of p<0.05.

Results: When comparing comfort and clarity under different conditions (daytime work and driving, night driving, low light driving, and when using a desktop computer or a handheld device), the subjects rated the AR lenses as being very good to excellent, while the non-AR lenses were rated good to very good (p<0.001). There was not a significant performance difference between the lenses as measured by contrast sensitivity (p=0.116); however when testing under glare conditions at 20/70 visual acuity, the driving limit in Illinois, AR lenses significantly improved visual perfomance as compared to lenses without AR (p=0.034). Upon completion, 78% of the subjects chose to keep the AR lenses as their preferred pair.

Conclusions: The majority of subjects displayed a clear preference for AR lenses over non-AR lenses. Subjectively the AR lenses provided better clarity and comfort when performing normal daily activities and tasks including driving, working at a computer and using a handheld device. Objectively glare was reduced thru the AR lenses when compared to non-AR lenses, but contrast sensitivity was not significantly improved. Recommending antireflective lenses may benefit the wearer by reducing glare, as well as enhancing comfort and acuity.

Keywords: 669 quality of life • 754 visual acuity  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×