https://doi.org/10.31288/oftalmolzh2016335

Threshold exposure duration for recognition of test objects in children with various refractive statuses

V.I. Serdiuchenko, Dr Sc (Med)

M.B. Zheliznik, Graduate Student

Filatov Institute of Eye Disease and Tissue Therapy,

Odessa, Ukraine

E-mail: virais@ukr.net

Backup: The speed of visual information processing is of primary importance today.

Purpose: To determine the threshold exposure duration for recognition of test objects (TEDRTO) values in children with various refractive statuses.

Materials and Methods: Seventy one children (22 hyperopes, 26 myopes, and 23 emmetropes; 142 eyes totally) aged 7 to 13 years underwent TEDRTO measurements with the electronic apparatus. A child fixated on a test object (TO) subtending 160, 40 or 8 minutes of arc (ma).

Results: The monocular TEDRTO values in emmetropes, hyperopes and myopes were 1.0 ms with a TO subtending 160 ma; 1.4±0.2 ms, 1.8±0.2 ms and 1.8±0.2 ms, respectively, with a TO subtending 40 ma; and 7.8±1.1 ms, 14.9±1.3 ms, and 7.9±1.0 ms, respectively, with a TO subtending 8 ma. Binocular TEDRTO values tended to be lower than monocular ones for optotypes subtending 40 and 8 ma.

Conclusion: TEDRTO values were found to increase significantly as the visual angle subtended by the TO decreased, which could be explained by a longer time required for recognition of a high-frequency image compared to that of a low-frequency image. Significantly higher TEDRTO values in hyperopes compared to emmetropes and myopes (P<0.05) might be explained by the involvement of accommodation in the mechanism of TO recognition in hyperopes. 

Key words: threshold exposure duration for recognition of test objects, refractive anomalies, emmetropia, hyperopia, myopia

 

References

1.Kolbanov VV. [Investigation of expositional visual acuity in armored vehicle teams]. Mil Med J. 1969;7:72-3 Russian

2.Kolbanov VV, Medvedev VI. [Dynamic characteristics of visual functions]. Hum Physiol. 1979;4(5):687-93 Russian

3.Baron WS, Westheimer G. Visual acuity as a function of exposure duration. J Opt Soc Am. 1973 Feb;63(2)212-9.
Crossref   Pubmed

4.Bokhov B.B., Nosovskii A.M. [The impact of long term isolation on visual acuity]. Aviacosm Ecolog Med. 1997;31(4):41-6. Russian

5.Cobb PW. Some experiments on the speed of vision. Trans Illum Eng Soc. 2(19):150-175

6.Dannenbaum E., Paquet N., Chilingaryan G., Fung J. Clinical evaluation of dynamic visual acuity in subjects with unilateral vestibular hypofunction. Otol. Neurotol. 2009 Apr;30(3):368-72
Crossref   Pubmed

7.Ferry C, Rand G. Intensity of light and speed of vision studied with the special reference to industrial situation. Part 2. Trans Illum Eng Soc. 1928;23:827.3. Serdiuchenko VI. [Timing parameters of the resolving ability of the eye and their importance for the diagnosis and treatment of strabismus and amblyopia. Oftalmol Zh. 1994;5:262--5 Russian

8.Serdiuchenko VI. [New dynamic techniques for examination of visual functions in refractive and binocular vision anomalies in children]. [Dr Sc (Med) Dissertation]. Odessa: Filatov Institute of Eye Disease and Tissue Therapy; 1995. 257 p. Russian

9.Serdiuchenko VI. [Time-based parameters of recognition of the eye and their value for fthe diagnosis and treatment of strabismus and amblyopia]. Oftalmol Zh. 1994;5:262-5 Russian

10.Serdiuchenko VI, Bibergan MA, Kazimirskyi AB, Bokhanov VN et al, inventors. [Apparatus for the measurement of visual acuity. USSR Industrial Design Patent No. 38162. Registered with the Industrial Design Register of the USSR on February 22, 1993.]  Russian

11.Von Noorden GK and Campos EC. Binocular vision and ocular motility. 6th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2002. p.115

12.Hubel DH, Wiesel TN. Receptive fields, binocular interaction and architecture in the cat’s visual cortex.  J Physiol. 1962;160:106-54
Crossref   Pubmed