June 2015
Volume 56, Issue 7
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2015
Test-retest repeatability and calibration of a new automated Belmonte esthesiometer
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Ping Situ
    School of Optometry, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN
  • Trefford L Simpson
    School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • Carolyn G Begley
    School of Optometry, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Ping Situ, CooperVision Inc (F); Trefford Simpson, CooperVision Inc (F); Carolyn Begley, CooperVision Inc (F)
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2015, Vol.56, 6080. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Ping Situ, Trefford L Simpson, Carolyn G Begley; Test-retest repeatability and calibration of a new automated Belmonte esthesiometer. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(7 ):6080.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract
 
Purpose
 

We have developed a custom, automated Belmonte esthesiometer at Indiana University. The purpose of this study was to calibrate the instrument and quantify repeatability of detection thresholds measured with room temperature pneumatic stimuli.

 
Methods
 

The esthesiometer is a dual chamber mechanical, chemical (CO2) and thermal pneumatic device. There is computer control of flow, %CO2 and temperature and computerized collection of subject responses. A temperature sensing circuit provides feedback to maintain a steady stimulus temperature independent of air-flow and ambient temperature. The output pressure and temperature esthesiometer was calibrated using a flow sensor (HONEYWELL AWM3100 V) and thermocouple (OMEGA type K). 15 non-lens wearing subjects and 52 adapted lens wearers had pneumatic detection thresholds estimated using an Ascending Methods of Limits in 2 sessions with mean (± SD) interval 3.5 (± 2.1) days between sessions. Each threshold was the average of the 3 flow rates at which subjects first reported the stimulus. Data analysis was conducted using R (3.1.2).

 
Results
 

After calibration, mean (± SD) test and retest thresholds were 58.33 (± 20.6) and 58.85 (± 23.2) ml/min respectively. The bivariate test-retest regression slope (ideal = 1.0) was 1.07 (95% CI 0.9-1.36) and the correlation coefficient of concordance was 0.74 (95% CI 0.61- 0.84). Bayesian mean test-retest difference was -0.057 (95% HDI -2.2 - 5.7 ml/min). Figure 1 shows the test-retest results and some posterior estimates of the data.

 
Conclusions
 

The new design provides repeatable room temperature threshold estimation. Calibration of the flow, temperature and CO2 content enable the measurement of the full range of ocular sensory processing channel capabilities.  

 
Baysian test-retest difference and some posterior estimates of the data
 
Baysian test-retest difference and some posterior estimates of the data

 
×
×

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.

×