The CFF technique was shown to be resistant to image degradation caused by cataracts, as CFF thresholds obtained in experiment 1 in the nonsurgical cataract group were similar to those found in the control group
(Table 2) . Furthermore, when compared with the RPH and PAM instruments in experiment 2, the CFF technique was shown to be the only PVT whose performance was not unduly influenced by the presence of dense cataracts
(Table 3) . The fact that the patient with mature intumescent cataract (VA, 2.20 logMAR, ∼20/3000 Snellen) was able to perform the CFF technique correctly before surgery constituted a remarkable finding. This patient was unable to give a response to any of the other PVTs, and an ophthalmoscopic view of her fundus was impossible. It should be noted that, to date, the only available method to investigate the neural integrity in this kind of opacity has been the electrophysiological tests and entoptic phenomena. The CFF technique measures the temporal resolution at a high modulation depth, and this may be the reason it is so resistant to cataract-induced changes that adversely affect the spatial processing system. It is possible that the resistance of CFF to cataract-induced vision loss may also be due to the scattering effects of cataract producing a larger retinal image of the target, which may compensate for any reduction in CFF thresholds due to a reduction of retinal illuminance.
The CFF technique also showed a low variability in thresholds among older subjects with normal visual function and in the nonsurgical cataract group (standard deviations of <10% of thresholds). This obviously helps in the correct identification of normal and abnormal thresholds. In fact, the CFF technique showed an excellent sensitivity for identifying normal visual function and hence for predicting successful postoperative outcome, with a 97% accuracy in the nonsurgical cataract sample. In agreement with previous studies,
21 36 37 the CFF technique also appeared to be sensitive to the presence of MD. Although different mechanisms mediate the appreciation of VA (spatial processing) and the detection of CFF (temporal processing),
38 a significant association between VA and CFF was found for results from the MD group
(Fig. 1) .
In the presence of moderate cataract and a normal fundus, OJ was able to predict postoperative VA better than the PVTs
(Table 4) , which suggests that there is no benefit in using PVTs in patients with moderate cataract and a normal fundus. However, in the presence of moderate cataracts and comorbid eye disease, all the PVTs showed higher percentages of correctly predicted postoperative VA than those obtained by OJ
(Table 4) . Although OJ provided a limited performance in predicting postoperative VA in dense cataract, with only 9 (60%) of the 15 patients’ VA predicted to within 3 lines, this was still superior to the performance of the RPH and PAM at 40%
(Table 4) . CFF provided the best predictive performance in dense cataract. This comparative assessment of OJ is obviously limited by the relatively small number of patients in each group and the fact that OJ was provided by one consultant ophthalmologist whose skill may not be representative. The results from OJ in this study are, however, similar to the OJ results from 75 ophthalmologists reported by Schein et al.
2 They indicated that 63% of patients predicted to achieve a VA of 20/40 or worse after surgery, attained 20/30 or better acuity. In the present study, OJ only predicted a postoperative VA of 20/40 or worse in five patients. Three of them (60%) achieved a postoperative VA of 20/30 or better. These three predictions were incorrect by 4.5, 5.5, and 9 lines. One patient had moderate cataract (LOCS III grade, P2.8) and MD, the second had dense cataract (LOCS III grade, P5.0; C, NC, and NO, all 4.0) with MD, and the third was a patient with dense cataract (LOCS III grade, P5.0; NC and NO, both 2.5) and exotropia who obtained 0.08 logMAR VA (∼20/25 Snellen) after surgery in his exotropic eye. In addition, OJ predicted VAs that were >3 lines better than achieved after surgery (FPs) for three patients. All three patients had moderate cataract, with two also having MD and the third, retinitis pigmentosa.
The detrimental effect of cataracts on the RPH and PAM values appears to be due to the inability of both instruments to bypass media opacities as the cataract becomes denser. The mean differences between predicted and postoperative VA were 0.12 ± 0.15 logMAR (PAM) and 0.14 ± 0.14 logMAR (RPH), using the data from patients with moderate cataract, but 0.38 ± 0.27 logMAR (PAM) and 0.31 ± 0.18 logMAR (RPH) in the patients with dense cataract. This fact has been previously reported for both techniques.
15 33 34 39 40 It was somewhat surprising that the PAM showed a similar ability to bypass media opacities as the RPH, considering that the PAM uses a reputed 0.15-mm point source image of a letter chart focused in the lens to bypass any opacity, whereas the RPH uses a 1.0-mm pinhole positioned approximately 15-mm from the cornea. However, it has been reported that the image of the letter chart produced by the PAM is a much larger, crosslike diffraction pattern than the 0.15-mm point source image claimed.
41 Melki et al.
34 reported a better predictive ability of their potential acuity pinhole test compared with the PAM in 56 patients undergoing cataract surgery, although predictive ability for both tests deteriorated with increased cataract density. This result may be due to differences between their potential acuity pinhole and the RPH and differences in sample population.
CFF has been shown to be higher in the periphery than in the fovea in some experimental conditions.
29 Therefore, the possibility exists that patients with cataract and coincident foveal dysfunction, usually macular degeneration, can achieve better preoperative CFF thresholds through the use of extrafoveal areas and still exhibit poor postoperative outcome. This may lead to false-positive predictions (i.e., the technique suggests normal visual function, but after surgery abnormal VA is discovered). This is the worst situation when predicting the postoperative outcome in cataract patients, with subsequent disappointment for both patient and surgeon. No evidence exists to suggest that this occurred in the present study. On the contrary, two patients from the PVT group who in fact reported eccentric viewing did not show any signs of performing the CFF thresholds using eccentric areas of the retina. Indeed, CFF thresholds were abnormal in concordance with their visual dysfunction. Previous studies have also found CFF thresholds to be affected by several vision disorders,
20 21 22 23 42 However, false-positive predictions should also be considered as possible because CFF thresholds appeared to be insensitive to the presence of amblyopia,
21 22 for example.
Given the limitation in this study of a relatively small subject sample in experiment 2, further research addressing the CFF technique is recommended. It must be noted that temporal modulation depth assessment at a fixed temporal frequency constitutes an alternative measurement. Mayer et al.
43 measured the temporal contrast sensitivity in early age-related maculopathy and suggest that the midtemporal frequencies may be particularly sensitive to this condition. The modulation sensitivity appears to be less affected by aging than is the flicker sensitivity, which decreases with advancing age. Further investigation is now needed to examine modulation sensitivity characteristics in the presence of cataract, with and without comorbidity.
In summary, the clinical measurement of CFF was relatively easy, with little training needed for the examiner and patient to perform the procedure. The equipment is relatively inexpensive and the technique is fast, taking only a few minutes per patient. In addition, an accurate refraction before threshold measurement is not essential, and the results can be easily analyzed by direct comparison with normative age-matched data. The present study has shown CFF to be a measure of visual performance that was unaffected by the presence of cataract and that was sensitive to MD. In addition, the CFF appears to provide useful information about the postoperative visual outcome over and above the information obtained through history and ocular examination in patients with dense cataracts.