Abstract
Background
The Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test (FrACT) has been further developed; it is now available for Macintosh and Windows free of charge at http://www.michaelbach.de/fract.html. The present study sought to reduce the test-retest variability of visual acuity on short runs (18 trials) by post-hoc re-analysis.
Methods
The FrACT employs advanced computer graphics to present Landolt Cs over the full range of visual acuity. The sequence of optotypes presented follows an adaptive staircase procedure, the Best-PEST algorithm. The Best-PEST threshold obtained after 18 trials was compared to the result of a post-hoc re-analysis of the acquired data, where both threshold and slope of the psychometric function were estimated via a maximum-likelihood fit.
Results
Testing time was 1.7 min per run on average. Test-retest reproducibility was ±2 lines (or ±0.2 logMAR) for a 95% confidence band (using 18 optotype presentations per test run). Post-hoc psychometric fitting reproduced the Best-PEST result within 1%, although the individual slopes varied widely; test-retest reproducibility was not improved.
Conclusions
The FrACT offers advantages over traditional chart testing with respect to objectivity and reliability. The similarity between the results of the Best-PEST vs. post-hoc analysis, fitting both slope and threshold, suggest that there is no disadvantage to the constant slope assumed by Best PEST. Furthermore, since variability was not reduced by post-hoc analysis, for high reliability more trials should be employed than the 18 trials per run used here.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bach M (1996) The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test-automatic measurement of visual acuity. Optom Vis Sci 73:49–53
Bach M (1997) Anti-aliasing and dithering in the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test. Spat Vis 11:85–89
Bach M (2006) Homepage of the Freiburg Visual Acuity and Contrast Test (‘FrACT’). Retrieved 2006-07-04, from http://www.michaelbach.de/fract.html
Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310
Bland JM, Altman DG (1995) Comparing methods of measurement: why plotting difference against standard method is misleading. Lancet 346:1085–1087
CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation) (1996) Ophthalmic optics-visual acuity testing-the standard optotype and its presentation. Beuth-Verlag, Berlin
Dennis RJ, Beer JM, Baldwin JB, Ivan DJ, Lorusso FJ, Thompson WT (2004) Using the Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test to measure visual performance in USAF personnel after PRK. Optom Vis Sci 81:516–524
Foley JD, Van Dam A, Feiner SK, Hughes JF (1990) Computer Graphics, Principles and Practice. Addison-Wesley, Reading
Green DM, Swets JA (1966) Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Wiley, New York
Hess R, Woo G (1978) Vision through cataracts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 17:428–435
Klein SA (2001) Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: a commentary. Percept Psychophys 63:1421–1455
Lieberman HR, Pentland AP (1982) Microcomputer-based estimation of psychophysical thresholds: The best PEST. Behav Res Methods Instrument 14:21–25
Linschoten MR, Harvey LO, Jr., Eller PM, Jafek BW (2001) Fast and accurate measurement of taste and smell thresholds using a maximum-likelihood adaptive staircase procedure. Percept Psychophys 63:1330–1347
Loumann Knudsen L (2003) Visual acuity testing in diabetic subjects: the decimal progression chart versus the Freiburg visual acuity test. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 241:615–618
Macmillan NA (2001) Threshold estimation: the state of the art. Percept Psychophys 63:1277–1278
Peters BT, Bloomberg JJ (2005) Dynamic visual acuity using “far” and “near” targets. Acta Otolaryngol 125:353–357
Petersen J (1990) Zur Fehlerbreite der subjektiven Visusmessung. Fortschr Ophthalmol 87:604–608
Ruamviboonsuk P, Tiensuwan M, Kunawut C, Masayaanon P (2003) Repeatability of an automated Landolt C test, compared with the early treatment of diabetic retinopathy study (ETDRS) chart testing. Am J Ophthalmol 136:662–669
Schulze-Bonsel K, Feltgen N, Burau H, Hansen LL, Bach M (2006) Visual acuities “Hand Motion” and “Counting Fingers” can be quantified using the Freiburg Visual Acuity Test. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci [in print]
Treutwein B (1995) Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision Res 35:2503–2522
Treutwein B, Strasburger H (1999) Fitting the psychometric function. Percept Psychophys 61:87–106
Weisstein EW. (2006) “Likelihood.” From MathWorld - A Wolfram Web Resource. Retrieved 2006-06-27, from < http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Likelihood.html >
Wesemann W (2002) [Visual acuity measured via the Freiburg visual acuity test (FVT), Bailey Lovie chart and Landolt Ring chart]. Klin Monatsbl Augenheilkd 219:660–667
Wichmann FA, Hill NJ (2001) The psychometric function: I. Fitting, sampling, and goodness of fit. Percept Psychophys 63:1293–1313
Acknowledgement
Thanks to many users for their inspiring support, providing feedback that helped to root out bugs and suggesting useful expansions. Special thanks to Lew Harvey, Hans Strasburger and Thomas Meigen for tutoring in signal detection theory, psychometric threshold assessment and probability statistics and to Margret Schumacher for assiduous testing. Finally, thanks to two very persistent reviewers who considerably helped to clarify my thoughts.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bach, M. The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test-Variability unchanged by post-hoc re-analysis. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 245, 965–971 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-006-0474-4
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-006-0474-4