Purchase this article with an account.
Kristy Remick-Waltman, Efrain Castellanos, Pinakin Gunvant Davey; Comparison of a video game-based vision screening to conventional vision screening performed by optometry students. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):5940.
Download citation file:
© ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)
The term “vision screening” and the process is diverse in both interpretation and application. Vision screening children ranges from identifying optotypes on a printed chart to a more comprehensive evaluation performed by personnel from an Optometry or Ophthalmology institutes. Notably, there is no standardization of vision screening protocols or of the charts utilized for vision screening. EyeSpy 20/20Ô is a computer-based vision screening system that can assess visual acuity, color vision and depth perception while the child ‘plays’ a video game. Here, we compare the visual acuity measurements performed by EyeSpy 20/20 and conventional visual acuity measurements performed by optometry students.
Visual acuity was measured in 210 individuals (mean age 8.5 years and SD 2.18) using both the EyeSpy 20/20 and the traditional Snellen-type acuity charts at a 10 feet distance. The results were converted to logMAR and the visual acuity measured by the systems were compared using a paired samples t-test. A visual acuity 20/40 or worse in either eye was considered as “fail” in vision screening and referral rates were calculated for both the traditional acuity screening and EyeSpy 20/20. The Snellen-type acuity charts are a static display of optotypes that are not randomized. The optotypes displayed by EyeSpy 20/20 are randomized, therein eliminating the possibility of the child memorizing the sequence of optotype presentation.
The mean logMAR visual acuity for right eye and left eye was 0.126 & 0.110 and 0.114 & 0.116 for the traditional system and EyeSpy 20/20. The difference in measured acuity right eye and left eye using each system was not significantly different (paired samples t-test p=0.63 and 0.15 respectively). The referral rates using the traditional visual acuity was 19.5% versus 25.2% using EyeSpy 20/20 (Wilcoxon test z=-2.83 p=0.004).
The visual acuity measured using static acuity charts and EyeSpy 20/20 was similar in the study population. The referral rates based on visual acuity was higher using EyeSpy 20/20 than static acuity charts. In the absence of a “gold standard ophthalmic examination” the false versus true positive rates cannot be established and further research is needed.
This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only