July 2018
Volume 59, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2018
Evaluation and comparison of objective and psychophysical techniques to measure macular pigment optical density
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Angeline Ngo
    Graduate College of Biomedical Sciences, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California, United States
  • Pinakin Gunvant Davey
    College of Optometry, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California, United States
  • Frank Spors
    College of Optometry, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California, United States
  • Stephanie Amonoo-Monney
    College of Optometry, Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, California, United States
  • Dennis L Gierhart
    ZeaVision, Chesterfield, Missouri, United States
  • Scott Rowe
    Rowe Technical Design, Inc., Dana Point, California, United States
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Angeline Ngo, None; Pinakin Davey, ZeaVision (C); Frank Spors, None; Stephanie Amonoo-Monney, None; Dennis Gierhart, ZeaVision (I); Scott Rowe, ZeaVision (C)
  • Footnotes
    Support  Dr. Pinakin Davey received a grant from ZeaVision LLC
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2018, Vol.59, 2428. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Angeline Ngo, Pinakin Gunvant Davey, Frank Spors, Stephanie Amonoo-Monney, Dennis L Gierhart, Scott Rowe; Evaluation and comparison of objective and psychophysical techniques to measure macular pigment optical density. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2018;59(9):2428.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To evaluate macular pigment optical density (MPOD) measurements obtained using a Macular Pigment Reflectometer (MPR), an objective and commercial prototype instrument, and compare them to the MPOD measurements obtained using QuantifEye MPSII (MPS II, ZeaVision St-Louis MO), a subjective heterochromatic flicker photometer.

Methods : Thirty eyes of thirty individuals were examined for the purposes of the study. The mean age of the study participants was 30.73 years (SD 6.87 years) and visual acuity of 20/20 or better in the study eye. The participants underwent MPOD measurement using the MPSII device twice. The MPOD measurements were performed using the MPR device (ZeaVision St-Louis MO, USA see figure 1) twice undilated and twice post pupillary dilation. The MPR calculates MPOD using a quartz halogen source and a mask to illuminate 1° at the retina which is also the visual reference to which the participant fixates for 40 seconds. The light reflected from the retina is collected and analyzed by a spectrometer. The instrument software calculates MPOD by averaging the spectrometer signals obtained after eliminating first 10 seconds of the data. The difference in the mean MPR-MPOD and the MPSII-MPOD was examined for statistical significance using paired samples t-test. The correlation between measured MPOD of the two techniques was evaluated and the coefficient of reproducibility was calculated for both MPSII and MPR-MPOD measurements.

Results : The mean MPSII-MPOD was 0.459 (SD 0.15). The mean MPR-MPOD undilated and dilated condition was 0.704 (SD 0.21) and 0.695 (SD 0.22) respectively. The difference in the mean MPR-MPOD measured using under undilated and dilated condition was not statistically significant (p=0.43). There was excellent correlation between the MPOD measured using the two devices; Pearson correlation coefficient r-statistic 0.92 under both dilated and undilated conditions. The coefficient of repeatability of MPOD measured using the MPS II device was 12.8% whereas the coefficient of repeatability of MPR under undilated and dilated condition was 11.2% and 8.3% respectively.

Conclusions : The mean MPR-MPOD is significantly correlated with MPSII-MPOD, is not influenced by pupillary dilation and has good repeatability . These results are promising and need to be confirmed in studies with a larger sample size.

This is an abstract that was submitted for the 2018 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Honolulu, Hawaii, April 29 - May 3, 2018.

 

The Macular Pigment Reflectometer and its parts

The Macular Pigment Reflectometer and its parts

×
×

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.

×