How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test?

Fabrizio Zeri, Paolo Calcatelli, Eleonora Funaro, Marialuisa Martelli, Shehzad A. Naroo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli–Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli–Robson chart. Methods: Two different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli–Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week. Results: In Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. Conclusions: Computer-generated versions of Pelli–Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli–Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli–Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version.

LanguageEnglish
Pages1473-1484
Number of pages12
JournalInternational Ophthalmology
Volume38
Issue number4
Early online date21 Jun 2017
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 21 Jun 2017

Fingerprint

Liquid Crystals
Contrast Sensitivity

Bibliographical note

The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0609-0

Keywords

  • computerized-based stimuli
  • contrast sensitivity
  • LCD systems
  • Pelli–Robson test

Cite this

Zeri, Fabrizio ; Calcatelli, Paolo ; Funaro, Eleonora ; Martelli, Marialuisa ; Naroo, Shehzad A. / How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test?. 2017 ; Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 1473-1484.
@article{b5f7316a778e4cb4a173965ca5d14b9d,
title = "How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test?",
abstract = "Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli–Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli–Robson chart. Methods: Two different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli–Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week. Results: In Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. Conclusions: Computer-generated versions of Pelli–Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli–Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli–Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version.",
keywords = "computerized-based stimuli, contrast sensitivity, LCD systems, Pelli–Robson test",
author = "Fabrizio Zeri and Paolo Calcatelli and Eleonora Funaro and Marialuisa Martelli and Naroo, {Shehzad A.}",
note = "The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0609-0",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "21",
doi = "10.1007/s10792-017-0609-0",
language = "English",
volume = "38",
pages = "1473--1484",
number = "4",

}

How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test? / Zeri, Fabrizio; Calcatelli, Paolo; Funaro, Eleonora; Martelli, Marialuisa; Naroo, Shehzad A.

Vol. 38, No. 4, 21.06.2017, p. 1473-1484.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test?

AU - Zeri, Fabrizio

AU - Calcatelli, Paolo

AU - Funaro, Eleonora

AU - Martelli, Marialuisa

AU - Naroo, Shehzad A.

N1 - The final publication is available at Springer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10792-017-0609-0

PY - 2017/6/21

Y1 - 2017/6/21

N2 - Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli–Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli–Robson chart. Methods: Two different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli–Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week. Results: In Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. Conclusions: Computer-generated versions of Pelli–Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli–Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli–Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version.

AB - Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli–Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli–Robson chart. Methods: Two different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli–Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week. Results: In Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. Conclusions: Computer-generated versions of Pelli–Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli–Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli–Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version.

KW - computerized-based stimuli

KW - contrast sensitivity

KW - LCD systems

KW - Pelli–Robson test

UR - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10792-017-0609-0

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021140480&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10792-017-0609-0

DO - 10.1007/s10792-017-0609-0

M3 - Article

VL - 38

SP - 1473

EP - 1484

IS - 4

ER -