Search Results (5)

This study evaluated binocular visual function using automatic dual rotational Risley prisms (ADRRPs) to measure phoria and vergence ranges. Thirty-nine (mean age: 21.82 ± 1.10 years; age range: 20–24 years) healthy adults with normal binocular vision participated. Each underwent baseline refraction exams followed by phoria and vergence tests conducted using both a phoropter with Maddox rods and the ADRRPs. The results revealed a strong positive correlation between the two instruments for distance phoria (r = 0.959, p < 0.001) and near-phoria measurements (r = 0.968, p < 0.001). For vergence testing, positive fusional vergence (PFV) at distance showed a moderate-to-strong correlation for break points (r = 0.758, p < 0.001) and a moderate correlation for recovery points (r = 0.452, p < 0.001). Negative fusional vergence (NFV) at distance demonstrated a strong correlation for break points (r = 0.863, p < 0.001) and a moderate correlation for recovery points (r = 0.458, p < 0.01). Near-vergence testing showed moderate-to-strong correlations for break points (r = 0.777, p < 0.001) and recovery points (r = 0.623, p < 0.001). The inclusion of Bland–Altman analysis provides a more comprehensive evaluation of agreement between ADRRPs and the phoropter. While strong correlations were observed, systematic bias and LoA indicate that these methods are not perfectly interchangeable. The ADRRPs demonstrated potential for binocular vision assessment but require further validation for clinical application. Full article

Vision has been shown to influence body posture. The purpose of this study is to investigate the correlations between visual acuity and body postural control both in a standing and seated position. This cohort study included 37 patients examined using Adaptica’s (Italy) Kaleidos and VisionFit. Objective refraction was measured with Kaleidos both in a standing and seated position by the same operator and in the same environmental conditions. The parameters obtained with the device were binocular refraction, monocular refraction, pupil distance, pupil size, head tilt, gaze, phorias, and tropias. The results obtained were then subjectively tested using VisionFit: an electronic trial frame with phoropter functionalities. The study’s outcome revealed that the differences in the visual acuity parameters obtained in standing and seated positions were statistically significant; the Student’s t-test showed a p-value < 0.001 in all parameter averages. Automated refraction is widely being performed and postural control can affect the visual acuity parameters; therefore, it is relevant to consider the possibility of measuring in orthostatism. It might be appropriate to take into account the possibility of measuring in orthostatism and wearing trial frames in orthostatic conditions as well as walking freely around the room, looking outside of a window, sitting, and reading. Full article

Objective: To evaluate the performance of two subjective refraction measurement algorithms by comparing the refraction values, visual acuity, and the time taken by the algorithms with the standard subjective refraction (SSR). Methods: The SSR and two semi-automated algorithm-based subjective refraction (SR1 and SR2) in-built in the Vision-R 800 phoropter were performed in 68 subjects. In SR1 and SR2, the subject’s responses were recorded in the algorithm which continuously modified the spherical and cylindrical component accordingly. The main difference between SR1 and SR2 is the use of an initial fogging step in SR1. Results: The average difference and agreement limits intervals in the spherical equivalent between each refraction method were smaller than 0.25 D, and 2.00 D, respectively. For the cylindrical components, the average difference was almost zero and the agreement limits interval was less than 0.50 D. The visual acuities were not significantly different among the methods. The times taken for SR1 and SR2 were significantly shorter, and SR2 was on average was three times faster than SSR. Conclusions: The refraction values and the visual acuity obtained with the standard subjective refraction and algorithm-based methods were similar on average. The algorithm-based methods were significantly faster than the standard method. Full article

A high-efficiency low-power chip-based liquid crystal (LC) driver has been successfully designed and implemented for adaptive electro-optic eyewear including tunable vision correction devices (eyeglass, contact lens, intraocular lens, occluder, and prism), phoropter, iris, head-mounted display, and 3D imaging. The driver can generate a 1 kHz bipolar square wave with magnitude tunable from 0 V to 15 V to change the lens focus adaptively. The LC driver output magnitude is controlled by a reference DC voltage that is manually tunable between 0 and 3 V. A multi-mode 1×/2×/3×/4×/5× charge pump is developed for DC-DC conversion to expand the output range with a fast-sink function implemented to regulate the charge pump output. In addition, a new four-phase H-bridge driving scheme is employed to improve the DC/AC inverter efficiency. The LC driver has been successfully implemented and tested as an IC chip (8.6 mm × 8.6 mm) using AMS 0.18 μm High-Voltage CMOS technology. Full article

Purpose: To investigate the inter-device agreement and mean differences between a newly developed digital phoropter and the two standard methods (trial frame and manual phoropter). Methods: Refractive errors of two groups of participants were measured by two examiners (examiner 1 (E1): 36 subjects; examiner 2 (E2): 38 subjects). Refractive errors were assessed using a trial frame, a manual phoropter and a digital phoropter. Inter-device agreement regarding the measurement of refractive errors was analyzed for differences in terms of the power vector components (spherical equivalent (SE) and the cylindrical power vector components J0 and J45) between the used methods. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC’s) were calculated to evaluate correlations between the used methods. Results: Analyzing the variances between the three methods for SE, J0 and J45 using a two-way ANOVA showed no significant differences between the methods (SE: p = 0.13, J0: p = 0.58 and J45: p = 0.96) for examiner 1 and for examiner 2 (SE: p = 0.88, J0: p = 0.95 and J45: p = 1). Mean differences and ±95% Limits of Agreement for each pair of inter-device agreement regarding the SE for both examiners were as follows: Trial frame vs. digital phoropter: +0.10 D ± 0.56 D (E1) and +0.19 D ± 0.60 D (E2), manual phoropter vs. trial frame: ?0.04 D ± 0.59 D (E1) and ?0.12 D ± 0.49 D (E2) and for manual vs. digital phoropter: +0.06 D ± 0.65 D (E1) and +0.08 D ± 0.45 D (E2). ICCs revealed high correlations between all methods for both examiner (p < 0.001). The time to assess the subjective refraction was significantly smaller with the digital phoropter (examiner 1: p < 0.001; examiner 2: p < 0.001). Conclusion: “All used subjective methods show a good agreement between each other terms of ICC (>0.9). Assessing refractive errors using different subjective methods, results in similar mean differences and 95% limits of agreement, when compared to those reported in studies comparing subjective refraction non-cylcoplegic retinoscopy or autorefraction”. Full article