IOVS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2006;47:3690-3694.)
© 2006 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.
DOI:  10.1167/iovs.05-1307
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wittich, W.
Right arrow Articles by Watanabe, D. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wittich, W.
Right arrow Articles by Watanabe, D. H.

Differences between Recognition and Resolution Acuity in Patients Undergoing Macular Hole Surgery

Walter Wittich,1,2 Olga Overbury,2,3 Michael A. Kapusta,3 and Donald H. Watanabe1

1From the Department of Psychology, Concordia University, the 2Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research, and the 3Department of Ophthalmology, Sir Mortimer B. Davis Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

PURPOSE. The present investigation compared recognition acuities (ETDRS chart) with resolution acuities (Landolt-C chart) in a sample of patients with idiopathic macular holes (MH). Traditionally, visual acuity in a clinical setting is measured with a letter chart. Yet, the ability to recognize a letter differs from a resolution task, such as detecting the direction of a gap in a ring. It was hypothesized that resolution acuity would be more impaired than recognition acuity in patients with MH, because component cues in letter optotypes are not available in Landolt-Cs.

METHOD. Visual acuities of 23 patients with MH (age range, 52–82) were tested, using standard ETDRS and Landolt-C charts. Optical coherence tomography was used to confirm the diagnosis of MH.

RESULTS. Acuities correlated strongly, before and after surgery (r = 0.92 and r = 0.95, respectively). However, paired t-tests determined that resolution acuity was significantly more impaired at both time points than was recognition acuity (P < 0.001). Using Bland-Altman plots, the limits of agreement between the two acuity types indicated that resolution acuity differed from recognition acuity by up to five lines before surgery and up to 3 lines after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS. ETDRS and Landolt-C acuities differ in a clinically significant way in patients before and after MH surgery. Measuring recognition acuity by reading letters may lead to an overestimate of visual ability at the retinal level in patients with MH by including compensatory top-down cognitive processes that are unavailable for resolution tasks.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 IOVSHome page
E. G. Gonzalez, L. Tarita-Nistor, S. N. Markowitz, and M. J. Steinbach
Computer-Based Test to Measure Optimal Visual Acuity in Age-Related Macular Degeneration
Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., October 1, 2007; 48(10): 4838 - 4845.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2006 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology