Photopic and Mesopic Contrast Sensitivity Function in the Presence of Glare and the Effect of Filters in Young Healthy Adults

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of four different filters on contrast sensitivity under photopic and mesopic conditions with and without glare.Methods: A forced choice algorithm in a Bayesian psychophysical procedure was utilized to evaluate the spatial luminance contrast sensitivity. Five different spatial frequencies were evaluated: 1.5, 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles per degree (cpd). The measurements were performed under 4 settings: photopic and mesopic luminance with glare and no glare. Two long pass filters (LED light reduction and 511nm filter) and two selective absorption filters (ML41 and emerald filter) and a no filter condition were evaluated. The measurements were performed in 9 young subjects with healthy eyes.Results: For the no filter condition, there was no difference between glare and no glare settings for the photopic contrast sensitivity measurements whereas in the mesopic setting, glare reduced the contrast sensitivity significantly at all spatial frequencies. There was no statistically significant difference between contrast sensitivity measurements obtained with different filters under both photopic conditions and the mesopic glare condition. In the mesopic no glare condition, the contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd with 511, ML41 and emerald filters was significantly reduced compared to no filter condition (p = 0.045, 0.045, and 0.071, respectively). Similarly, with these filters the area under the contrast sensitivity function in the mesopic no glare condition was also reduced. A significant positive correlation was seen between the filter light transmission and the average AULCSF in the mesopic non-glare condition.Conclusion: The contrast sensitivity measured with the filters was not significantly different than the no filter condition in photopic glare and no glare setting as well as in mesopic glare setting. In mesopic setting with no glare, filters reduced contrast sensitivity.

Factors Influencing Contrast Sensitivity Function in Eyes with Mild Cataract

This study was aimed to evaluate the relationship between the area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) and several optical factors in eyes suffering mild cataract. We enrolled 71 eyes of 71 patients (mean age, 71.4 ± 10.7 (standard deviation) years) with cataract formation who were under surgical consultation. We determined the area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) using a contrast sensitivity unit (VCTS-6500, Vistech). We utilized single and multiple regression analyses to investigate the relevant factors in such eyes. The mean AULSCF was 1.06 ± 0.16 (0.62 to 1.38). Explanatory variables relevant to the AULCSF were, in order of influence, logMAR best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) (p < 0.001, partial regression coefficient B = −0.372), and log(s) (p = 0.023, B = −0.032) (adjusted R2 = 0.402). We found no significant association with other variables such as age, gender, uncorrected visual acuity, nuclear sclerosis grade, or ocular HOAs. Eyes with better BSCVA and lower log(s) are more susceptible to show higher AULCSF, even in mild cataract subjects. It is indicated that both visual acuity and intraocular forward scattering play a role in the CS function in such eyes.

The Curve Visible on the Campbell-Robson Chart Is Not the Contrast Sensitivity Function

The Campbell-Robson chart is a highly popular figure used in psychophysics and visual perception textbooks to illustrate the Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF). The chart depicts a grating which varies logarithmically in spatial frequency (SF) from left to right and in contrast from bottom to top. Campbell and Robson’s (1964) intuition was that the boundary between the grating and the homogeneous gray area (below threshold) would trace the shape of the observer’s own CSF. In this paper, we tested this intuition. A total of 170 participants (96 adults and 74 children) adjusted the four parameters of a truncated log-parabola directly onto a Campbell-Robson chart rendition and completed a gold-standard CSF evaluation. We hoped that this procedure which requires a mere three clicks on the computer mouse, would speed up the measurement of the CSF to under a minute. Unfortunately, the only parameter of the truncated log-parabola fitted to the gold-standard CSF data that could be predicted from the Campbell-Robson chart data was the peak sensitivity for the adult participants. We conclude that the curve visible on the Campbell-Robson chart cannot be used practically to measure the CSF.