Mesopic foveal contrast sensitivity is impaired in diabetic patients without retinopathy
32
Citation
22
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Keywords:
Mesopic vision
Abstract Acta Ophthalmol. 2011: 89: 40–46 Abstract. Purpose: To compare the quality of vision achieved with different aspheric intraocular lens (IOL) implants. Methods: This prospective, comparative and randomized study included 90 eyes that underwent phacoemulsification and implantation with one of three different aspheric IOLs. Patients were assigned randomly to receive one type of aspheric IOL: Tecnis Z9003® (Advanced Medical Optics, Santa Ana, California, USA) (Group A), Acrysof IQ SN60WF® (Alcon Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas, USA) (Group B) or Akreos ADAPT-AO® (Bausch & Lomb, Rochester, New York, USA) (Group C). Ophthalmic examinations, including uncorrected visual acuity, best spectacle-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), refractive error, wavefront analysis, contrast sensitivity under mesopic and photopic conditions, and a subjective questionnaire, were performed postoperatively. Results: The mean BCVA, mean refractive error and high-order aberrations were not significantly different among the three groups. The spherical aberrations were 0.0021 ± 0.096 for group A, 0.048 ± 0.071 for group B and 0.11 ± 0.089 for group C, indicating a significantly lower magnitude in group A (p = 0.012). In addition, group A showed significantly better results in contrast sensitivity under mesopic (p = 0.042) and photopic (p = 0.047, 0.049) conditions at low spatial frequencies. Nevertheless, postoperative patient satisfaction was not different among the three groups. Conclusion: The Tecnis Z9003® IOL reduced spherical aberrations and improved contrast sensitivity under mesopic and photopic conditions at low spatial frequencies. Nevertheless, the final visual quality was not different among the three groups.
Mesopic vision
Intraocular lenses
Scotopic vision
Cite
Citations (24)
This paper deals with the issues of meaning S/P factor of light sources in lighting of outdoor spaces. The first part describes the problem of photopic, scotopic and mesopic vision, as well as functions and activities of the human eye which define the meaning of the S/P factor lamps. The second part is dedicated to the measurement of luminous flux a selected light source used to lighting outdoor spaces, calculating S/P (scotopic/photopic) factor and ELF (Effective Luminance Factors) and finally to drawing conclusions from their measurements and calculations.
Scotopic vision
Mesopic vision
Luminous flux
Factor (programming language)
Cite
Citations (2)
The human eye presents different visual responses for different luminosity conditions. Thus, it can be defined different regimes of operation of the human visual system, like photopic and scotopic regimes, for high and low luminance levels respectively. All the classic photometry is based on the vision sensibility under the photopic regime. However, in several situations, it is common to face intermediate conditions known as mesopic. So, in order to convert photometric quantities between photopic and mesopic regimes, there is an equation in literature that describes the relationship between photopic and scotopic luminous fluxes as a function of the color correlate temperature. However, there are some evidences that this expression does not apply accurately to all technologies of light sources. Thus, this paper presents laboratory data showing that the equation in question does not apply to all lighting technologies, pointing towards a review of that relationship.
Mesopic vision
Scotopic vision
Luminous efficacy
Cite
Citations (4)
Mesopic vision
Scotopic vision
Cite
Citations (3)
Abstract Purpose: To compare the effects on visual function and quality of life in cataract patients undergoing cataract surgery between different extended depth of focus (EDOF) lenses, when subjected to different illumination conditions. Methods: Observational, prospective, cross‐sectional pilot study with a total of 31 eyes of 15 patients undergoing uncomplicated phacoemulsification cataract surgery with Tecnis Eyhance, Isopure1.2.3 and Vivity intraocular lenses. All patients underwent a complete preoperative examination. They were also evaluated on different days under mesopic and photopic conditions. Results: Thirty‐one eyes of 15 patients (70.5 ± 8.6) were included in the study. Statistically significant values were obtained when comparing intermediate visual acuity (VA) between mesopic and photopic illumination conditions for the Isopure and Eyhance lenses with a value of 0.021 and the Isopure lens with Vivity with 0.001. In photopic conditions at intermediate distance a significant value was obtained between Vivity and Eyhance with a value of 0.02 and in mesopic conditions at intermediate distance between Vivity and Isopure with a value of 0.001. Between the different lenses, no significant values were obtained between the photopic and mesopic conditions. No significant values were found for pupillometry and halometry in mesopic conditions either. Conclusions: All three intraocular lenses provided excellent distance vision in both photopic and mesopic conditions with no statistically significant differences. But in intermediate distance, significant differences were found between photopic and mesopic conditions between the Isopure lens and the Vivity and Eyhance lenses. Therefore, the Isopure lens has worse intermediate VA values in mesopic than the other lenses. There were also no significant differences in near vision in pupillometry and halometry.
Mesopic vision
Scotopic vision
Cite
Citations (0)
Mesopic conditions elicit both rod and cone responses, and they are more commonly encountered in daily life than are scotopic conditions; yet visual function outcome measures of mesopic visual acuity (VA) or contrast sensitivity (CS) are rarely evaluated.In retinitis pigmentosa (RP), we explored whether visual reductions in mesopic versus photopic conditions were correlated with cone or rod function, as well as the between-visit test-retest variability in mesopic measures.At each of two visits, 22 RP subjects completed mesopic and photopic ETDRS VA and Pelli-Robson chart CS tests obtained with and without a U23 NoIR 4% transmission filter; testing of perifoveal scotopic cone or rod sensitivity with the AdaptDx; and the Rabin Cone Contrast Test (CCT).A greater CS reduction in mesopic versus photopic conditions was significantly related to absence of scotopic rod function (p = 0.038) or longer self-reported duration of night vision loss (p = 0.044). VA reductions >0.2 logMAR in mesopic versus photopic conditions were significantly related to reduced cone-mediated scotopic sensitivity (p = 0.038). Significant predictors of the CCT ratio of S-cone to M- and L-cone sensitivity were mesopic VA (p = 0.038) and absence of AdaptDx rod function (p = 0.008). Test-retest 95% coefficients of repeatability were not significantly different when comparing between photopic and mesopic tests of VA (0.16 and 0.12 logMAR, respectively) or CS (0.21 and 0.24 logCS, respectively).Perifoveal scotopic rod and cone function measured with the AdaptDx was significantly correlated with mesopic CS and VA, respectively, which had good, acceptable test-retest repeatability; thus, they appear to be suitable outcome measures to monitor mesopic visual function in clinical practice or trials. RP subjects with reduced mesopic VA and no perifoveal rod function had a greater loss of sensitivity for S-cones than for L-/M-cones.
Mesopic vision
Scotopic vision
Repeatability
Cite
Citations (10)
Mesopic vision
Scotopic vision
Night vision
Cite
Citations (11)
Mesopic vision
Scotopic vision
Luminous efficacy
Night vision
Cite
Citations (14)
Abstract Purpose To evaluate and compare the visual performance of two simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses ( CL s). Methods In this cross‐over study design 20 presbyopic subjects were fitted with two different simultaneous vision multifocal CL s (the P ure V ision M ultifocal L ow A dd and A cuvue O asys for P resbyopia) in random order. After 1 month, binocular distance visual acuity ( BDVA ) under photopic (85 cd/m 2 ) and mesopic (3 cd/m 2 ) conditions, binocular near visual acuity ( BNVA ), binocular distance contrast sensitivity function ( CSF ) under photopic and mesopic conditions, binocular near CSF and defocus curve were measured. Subjects were then refitted with the alternative correction and the procedure was repeated. Results Mean BDVA under photopic conditions was similar for the A cuvue O asys for P resbyopia and P ure V ision M ultifocal L ow A dd: 0.01 ± 0.08 and 0.00 ± 0.08 log MAR , respectively ( P = 0.45). Under mesopic conditions the values of BDVA were 0.20 ± 0.58 and 0.11 ± 0.09 log MAR , respectively ( P = 0.005). Mean BNVA was 0.20 ± 0.05 and 0.15 ± 0.08 log MAR for the A cuvue O asys and P ure V ision L ow A dd, respectively ( P = 0.06). Binocular distance CSF testing revealed no statistically significant differences between lenses under photopic, mesopic or near conditions. Both lenses provided a comparable intermediate visual acuity. Conclusions Both simultaneous vision multifocal CL s provided adequate distance visual quality under photopic and mesopic conditions, and better visual acuity was provided under mesopic conditions for the P urevision lens. Both lenses provided adequate visual performance at intermediate distance, but the near visual acuity appears to be insufficient for early presbyopes who require a moderately demanding near visual quality.
Mesopic vision
Cite
Citations (45)
Mesopic vision
Scotopic vision
Cite
Citations (0)