September 2016
Volume 57, Issue 12
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Evaluating Objective Refraction Optimized with the Visual Strehl Image Quality Metric
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Gareth D Hastings
    College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Jason D Marsack
    College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Han Cheng
    College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Lan Chi Nguyen
    College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Raymond A Applegate
    College of Optometry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Gareth Hastings, None; Jason Marsack, None; Han Cheng, None; Lan Nguyen, None; Raymond Applegate, University of Houston (P)
  • Footnotes
    Support  NIH/NEI R01EY019105 (RAA and JDM)
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science September 2016, Vol.57, 6255. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Gareth D Hastings, Jason D Marsack, Han Cheng, Lan Chi Nguyen, Raymond A Applegate; Evaluating Objective Refraction Optimized with the Visual Strehl Image Quality Metric. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2016;57(12):6255.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To determine whether using the image quality (IQ) metric VSX (visual Strehl ratio) to optimize objective refraction from wavefront error (WFE) measures can provide a refraction as good as, or better than, subjective refraction while undilated or dilated.

Methods : 14 subjects, mean (±SD) age 27.6 (±5.3) years participated; all had refractive error >1D (range +1.25 to –7.00D sphere and 0 to –1.25D cylinder), correctable to 20/20, and no ocular pathology.
Uncorrected WFE was measured undilated; autorefraction and subjective refraction were performed. For each eye >15 000 sphero-cylindrical combinations (S-C Rx) (from +3 to –2D sphere in 0.25D steps, 0 to –2D cylinder in 0.25D steps, and 2° axis steps, around the second order defocus term) were converted to Zernike terms and added to the measured WFE, each generating a residual WFE. VSX was calculated for each resultant WFE and the S-C Rx with best VSX was identified as optimizing visual IQ. High (HC) and low contrast (LC) visual acuity (VA) were recorded (3 times and averaged) through each Rx. Subjects also evaluated their distance vision preference between the two Rxs on a seven-point Likert scale.
Pupils were dilated with 1% tropicamide and the entire procedure repeated.

Results : Both eyes of each subject were analyzed. Mean (±SD) difference (objective – subjective) in logMAR VA between the Rxs was –0.003 (±0.037) and –0.026 (±0.081) for HC and LC respectively for the undilated condition, and +0.003 (±0.070) and –0.003 (±0.088) for the dilated condition. Given test-retest variability (SD) of both HC and LC logMAR VA is > ±0.05, the Rxs provide clinically equivalent VA. Paired t-tests also showed no statistically significant difference between the Rxs.
Mean (±SD) differences (objective – subjective) in terms of M, J0, and J45 respectively were –0.62 D (±0.39), +0.08 D (±0.17), –0.03 D (±0.13) undilated, and –0.32 D (±0.23), +0.02 D (±0.16), –0.05 D (±0.12) dilated. The Euclidean separation of the Rxs in power vector dioptric space was 0.68 (±0.35) undilated and 0.40 (±0.21) dilated.
Preferences (objective better: no difference: subjective better) were 19:0:9 for undilated eyes and 15:6:7 for dilated eyes.

Conclusions : Optimizing objective refraction using VSX provided an Rx equivalent to subjective refraction in VA and generally preferred in a monocular comparison. The two Rxs were virtually identical in astigmatic components and similar in equivalent sphere.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2016 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Seattle, Wash., May 1-5, 2016.

×
×

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.

×