This study aimed to validate visual acuity measurements using a cross-platform system in an ophthalmological setting.
Methods
Visual acuity was assessed at a distance of 5 m using two different modalities: printed and digital optotypes. The devices included Android, LG WebOS and Samsung Tizen smart TVs. Optotypes were presented in the logMAR scale. Two modalities, a single row and a block of symbols, presented SLOAN letters and Tumbling-E symbols.
Results
Visual acuity measurements of 190 participants aged 12 to 60 years demonstrated good-to-strong test-retest correlation (ICC > 0.75) and minimal bias (−0.03 to 0.02 logMAR). Limits of agreement were comparable to other studies (0.13−0.26 logMAR), with the smallest values for Tumbling-E row presentation in all devices and the highest value for Sloan chart in LG device. ANOVA revealed no statistical differences in visual acuity across devices. Sloan letters showed superior visual acuity compared to Tumbling-E (p < 0.001), however, this difference corresponded to only 2 letters of visual acuity.
Conclusion
The digital cross-platform evaluated serves as a versatile substitute for traditional visual acuity assessments in individuals aged 12 years and older. Further research is necessary for patients with visual acuity worse than 0.5 logMAR and for conducting vision screenings in young children.
HarrisPARobertsLEGrantR. Comparison of backlit and novel automated ETDRS visual acuity charts. Optom Vis Perform2018; 6: 87–96.
5.
ClaessensJLJGeuversJRImhofSM, et al.Digital tools for the self-assessment of visual acuity: a systematic review. Ophthalmol Ther2021 Dec; 10: 715–730. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40123-021-00360-3
6.
ThirunavukarasuAJMullingerDRufus-ToyeRM, et al.Clinical validation of a novel web-application for remote assessment of distance visual acuity. Eye (Lond)2022 Oct; 36: 2057–2061. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01760-2
7.
LabirisGPanagiotopoulouEKDelibasisK, et al.Validation of a web-based distance visual acuity test. J Cataract Refract Surg2023 Jul 1; 49: 666–671. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001176. PMID: 36853857.
8.
WisseRPLMuijzerMBCassanoF, et al.Validation of an independent web-based tool for measuring visual acuity and refractive error (the manifest versus online refractive evaluation trial). Prospective Open-Label Noninferiority Clinical Trial. J Med Internet Res2019 Nov 8; 21: e14808.
9.
BradyCJEghrariAOLabriqueAB. Smartphone-Based visual acuity measurement for screening and clinical assessment. JAMA2015 Dec 22‐29; 314: 2682–2683. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.15855
10.
CarkeetAJohnsonAHopkinsS. Different pictogram vision charts give different slopes for psychometric functions, in preschool children. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci2022; 63: 2555–F0509.
11.
FacchinAMaffiolettiSMartelliM, et al.Different trajectories in the development of visual acuity with different levels of crowding: the milan eye chart (MEC). Vision Res2019; 156: 10–16.
YuliantiNFMunawirAAdjiNK. Validity of electronic device-based application for visual acuity examination: a systematic review. Indones J Electron Electromed Eng Med Inform2022; 4: 41–47.
14.
GoodWV. Vision assessment of nonverbal patients. Am Orthopt J2007; 57: 13–18.
15.
SiderovJTiuAL. Variability of measurements of visual acuity in a large eye clinic. Acta Ophthalmol Scand1999; 77: 673–676.
16.
PangYSparschuLNylinE. Validation of an automated-ETDRS near and intermediate visual acuity measurement. Clin Exp Optom2020 Sep; 103: 663–667. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/cxo.13018. Epub 2019 Dec 10. PMID: 31822041.
17.
DawkinsABjerreA. Do the near computerised and non-computerised crowded kay picture tests produce the same measure of visual acuity?Br Ir Orthopt J2016; 13: 22–28.
18.
RosserDACousensSNMurdochIE, et al.How sensitive to clinical change are ETDRS logMAR visual acuity measurements?Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci2003; 44: 3278–3281.
19.
AnsticeNSJacobsRJSimkinSK, et al.Do picture-based charts overestimate visual acuity? Comparison of kay pictures, lea symbols, HOTV and keeler log MAR charts with sloan letters in adults and children. PLoS One2017; 12: e0170839.
20.
LalorSJHFormankiewiczMAWaughSJ. Crowding and visual acuity measured in adults using pediatric test letters, pictures and symbols. Vision Res2016; 121: 31–38.
21.
Campo Dall'OrtoGFacchinABellatorreA, et al.Measurement of visual acuity with a digital eye chart: optotypes, presentation modalities and repeatability. J Optom2021 Apr‐Jun; 14: 133–141.
22.
PlainisSKontadakisGFeloniE, et al.Comparison of visual acuity charts in young adults and patients with diabetic retinopathy. Optom Vis Sci2013; 90: 174–178.
23.
DobsonVClifford-DonaldsonCEMillerJM, et al.A comparison of lea symbol vs ETDRS letter distance visual acuity in a population of young children with a high prevalence of astigmatism. J AAPOS2009 Jun; 13: 253–257. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2009.01.007
24.
MarranLLiuLLauG. Desktop publishing and validation of custom near visual acuity charts. Optom Vis Sci2008; 85: 1082–1090.
25.
LarimerJOGilleJPowersMK, et al.Hyperacuity on high-resolution and very high resolution displays. In: Human vision and electronic imaging IX. Vol. 5292, 2004, pp.211-7. SPIE.
26.
BoggessBWiechelJMorrD, et al. Anatomical limitations of the visual field of view: an example of driving perspective. SAE Technical Paper 2008-01-1876, 2008. doi:10.4271/2008-01-1876
HynesNJCufflinMPHampsonKM, et al.The effect of image resolution of display types on accommodative microfluctuations. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 2022 Feb; 1: 514–525. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/opo.12949
29.
GeorgesonMABarhoomHJoshiMR, et al.Revealing the influence of bias in a letter acuity identification task: a noisy template model. Vision Res2023; 208: 108233.
30.
VafaieMHBeniEA. Design and implementation of a smart wireless controlled visual acuity measurement system. J Med Signals Sens2023; 13: 307–318.
