Abstract
Purpose.:
Contrast adaptation has been speculated to be an error signal for emmetropization. Myopic children exhibit higher contrast adaptation than emmetropic children. This study aimed to determine whether contrast adaptation varies with the type of text viewed by emmetropic and myopic young adults.
Methods.:
Baseline contrast sensitivity was determined in 25 emmetropic and 25 spectacle-corrected myopic young adults for 0.5, 1.2, 2.7, 4.4, and 6.2 cycles per degree (cpd) horizontal sine wave gratings. The adults spent periods looking at a 6.2 cpd high-contrast horizontal grating and reading lines of English and Chinese text (these texts comprised 1.2 cpd row and 6 cpd stroke frequencies). The effects of these near tasks on contrast sensitivity were determined, with decreases in sensitivity indicating contrast adaptation.
Results.:
Contrast adaptation was affected by the near task (F 2,672 = 43.0; P < 0.001). Adaptation was greater for the grating task (0.13 ± 0.17 log unit, averaged across all frequencies) than reading tasks, but there was no significant difference between the two reading tasks (English 0.05 ± 0.13 log unit versus Chinese 0.04 ± 0.13 log unit). The myopic group showed significantly greater adaptation (by 0.04, 0.04, and 0.05 log units for English, Chinese, and grating tasks, respectively) than the emmetropic group (F 1,48 = 5.0; P = 0.03).
Conclusions.:
In young adults, reading Chinese text induced similar contrast adaptation as reading English text. Myopes exhibited greater contrast adaptation than emmetropes. Contrast adaptation, independent of text type, might be associated with myopia development.
The experimental setup and test procedures have been described in detail previously.
15 Contrast sensitivity was measured using the Metropsis Psychophysical Vision Testing (MPVT; Cambridge Research System, Rochester, UK). The protocol was a two-interval forced choice logarithmic staircase procedure. Mean and standard deviation of contrast sensitivity were determined from the last 8 of 12 staircase reversals.
The adapting stimuli (printed text and contrast grating) were placed in a holder 40 cm from the participant while the contrast testing monitor was 1 m from the participant. The participant turned his or her body through 90° to view either the adapting stimuli or the monitor. All participants were corrected using a trial frame and trial lenses. The small increases in effective spatial frequencies provided by spectacle lenses, 8% for the maximum lens power of −5.75 D at 15-mm distance between pupil and lens back vertex distance, would have been compensated by increases in axial length of myopes relative to those of emmetropes. The participants adapted with both eyes and then turned to the computer screen. During testing an occluder was fixed at the chin and head rest in front of the nontested eye. All participants had practice sessions until they reported confidence in their ability to perform the test.
Baseline contrast sensitivity was determined for 0.5, 1.2, 2.7, 4.4, and 6.2 cpd, either in ascending or descending spatial frequency order; this was randomized between participants and repeat runs (three trials were conducted and data averaged for each spatial frequency) followed the same randomized order. The angles subtended by the adapting stimuli were 35° horizontal and 27° vertically and the testing Gabor size was 2.4° (full width at half maximum).
Three adaptation tasks were used: silent reading of English text and Chinese text and viewing of a 6.2 cpd, 92% contrast (Michelson formula), sine-wave horizontal grating. The reading texts consisted of high-contrast (92%) hard-copy print of children's stories; the English text was in 12 point Times New Roman font with a line spacing of 17.5 points on A4 landscape paper, and the Chinese text was in SimSun 10.5 with a spacing of 17.5 points. The grating was printed on white A4 landscape paper and the participant fixated on a small cross at the grating center.
The row and stroke frequencies of the texts were 1.2 and 6.04 cpd, respectively. To determine row frequency, the text was assumed to form the black bars of a grating and the spaces between the texts formed the white bar of the grating. The stroke frequency was calculated according to Majaj et al.
21 A horizontal line was drawn across the letters of a word and the vertical strokes of the letters that crossed the horizontal line were counted. Stroke frequency was obtained by averaging the number of strokes crossing the horizontal midline for all the letters, divided by the average letter width in degrees. The first two rows of words of the adapting text stimuli were measured. The MPVT was not able to generate 6.0 cpd, and a spatial frequency of 6.2 cpd was used for the adapting grating task.
Contrast sensitivity measurement for the three adapting conditions was randomized between participants. An adapt–test–re-adapt paradigm (adapt 1 minute, test 30 seconds, and re-adapt 1 minute) was used to ensure stable levels of contrast adaptation were maintained during the testing procedure.
22 Participants were given short breaks for each spatial frequency tested within an adaptation task and longer breaks between each adaptation task. Three trials were conducted and data were averaged for each spatial frequency.
Figure 1 shows mean log contrast sensitivities at baseline, during reading of text and during viewing of a horizontal grating for (1) all participants, (2) emmetropic young adults, and (3) myopic young adults. Baseline contrast sensitivity was not affected by sex (
F 1,48 = 2.7,
P = 0.11), age (
F 6,43 = 0.7,
P = 0.65), or refractive error group (
F 1,48 = 2.0,
P = 0.16).
The Table and
Figure 2 show the means and standard deviations of contrast adaptation during reading and during viewing the horizontal grating. Contrast adaptation was affected by the near task (
F 2,672 = 43.0,
P < 0.001), such that adaptation was significantly greater for the grating task (0.13 ± 0.17 log unit) than for reading tasks and there was no significant difference between the two reading tasks (English 0.05 ± 0.13 log unit versus Chinese 0.04 ± 0.13 log unit).
Table. Contrast Adaptation during Reading and Viewing the Horizontal Grating in Myopic and Emmetropic Young Adults
Table. Contrast Adaptation during Reading and Viewing the Horizontal Grating in Myopic and Emmetropic Young Adults
Adaptation Task | English Text | Chinese Text | Horizontal Grating |
Spatial Frequency | 0.5 | 1.2 | 2.7 | 4.4 | 6.2 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 2.7 | 4.4 | 6.2 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 2.7 | 4.4 | 6.2 |
Contrast adaptation, log unit |
All | 0.040 ± 0.119 | 0.096 ± 0.117* | 0.060 ± 0.103 | 0.022 ± 0.131 | 0.010 ± 0.153 | 0.045 ± 0.105 | 0.087 ± 0.120* | 0.036 ± 0.135 | 0.020 ± 0.132 | 0.024 ± 0.152 | 0.026 ± 0.113 | 0.073 ± 0.148 | 0.074 ± 0.138 | 0.184 ± 0.143* | 0.277 ± 0.161* |
E | 0.017 ± 0.116 | 0.088 ± 0.136 | 0.040 ± 0.115 | −0.018 ± 0.116 | −0.005 ± 0.158 | 0.026 ± 0.075 | 0.058 ± 0.123 | 0.024 ± 0.158 | −0.006 ± 0.098 | 0.005 ± 0.166 | 0.024 ± 0.090 | 0.042 ± 0.152 | 0.065 ± 0.148 | 0.131 ± 0.110* | 0.253 ± 0.145* |
M | 0.062 ± 0.119 | 0.105 ± 0.097* | 0.079 ± 0.088 | 0.062 ± 0.136 | 0.025 ± 0.150 | 0.064 ± 0.127 | 0.115 ± 0.112* | 0.049 ± 0.109 | 0.046 ± 0.156 | 0.043 ± 0.138 | 0.028 ± 0.134 | 0.105 ± 0.140 | 0.084 ± 0.130 | 0.237 ± 0.154* | 0.301 ± 0.175* |
Adaptation was significantly different across the range of spatial frequencies tested (
F 4,672 = 7.5,
P < 0.01). There was a significant interaction between task and spatial frequency (
F 8,672 = 19.3,
P < 0.01), with adaptation significantly greater for gratings than for texts at 4.4 and 6.2 cpd (
Fig. 2).
Post hoc tests showed significant adaptation (P < 0.001) for the grating task for both emmetropes (0.11 ± 0.15 log units) and myopes (0.15 ± 0.18 log unit). Post hoc tests also showed significant adaptation for both English text (0.07 ± 0.12 log unit; P < 0.001) and Chinese text (0.06 ± 0.13 log unit; P < 0.001) in myopes, but these were not observed in emmetropes (0.03 ± 0.13 log unit English [P = 0.62], 0.02 ± 0.13 log unit Chinese [P = 1.0]).
When data were pooled across spatial frequencies and tasks, the myopes showed significantly greater adaptation than the emmetropes (0.09 ± 0.13 vs. 0.05 ± 0.13 log unit, F 1,48 = 5.0; P = 0.03). The interaction between refractive error group and adaptation task was not significant (F 2,672 = 0.1, P = 0.95), and neither was the interaction between refractive error group and spatial frequency (F 4,672 = 0.2, P = 0.92).