Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Deterioration of contrast sensitivity in eyes with epiphora due to lacrimal passage obstruction

  • Kuniharu Tasaki ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Kuniharu Tasaki, Sujin Hoshi

    Roles Data curation, Writing – original draft

    Affiliation Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

    ⨯
  • Sujin Hoshi ,

    Contributed equally to this work with: Kuniharu Tasaki, Sujin Hoshi

    Roles Data curation, Writing – review & editing

    hoshisujin@md.tsukuba.ac.jp

    Affiliation Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

    ⨯
  • Takahiro Hiraoka,

    Roles Data curation, Supervision, Validation

    Affiliation Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

    ⨯
  • Tetsuro Oshika

    Roles Supervision

    Affiliation Department of Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan

    ⨯

Abstract

Purpose

Epiphora causes deterioration in contrast sensitivity in some eye diseases. This study was conducted to investigate contrast sensitivity in eyes with epiphora caused by lacrimal passage obstruction.

Methods

This single-center, prospective case series enrolled 57 patients with unilateral lacrimal passage obstruction. The best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity function, and lower tear meniscus of the affected and contralateral unaffected eyes were compared. The area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) was calculated.

Results

The BCVA did not significantly differ between the affected and contralateral eyes, while the AULCSF was significantly lower in the affected eyes than that in the contralateral eyes (median 1.35, interquartile range 1.22–1.44 vs. median 1.36, interquartile range 1.28–1.46, P = 0.032). Lower tear meniscus parameters were significantly higher in the affected eyes than those in the contralateral eyes (P < 0.005).

Conclusions

The contrast sensitivity function is significantly diminished in eyes with epiphora caused by lacrimal passage obstruction.

Citation: Tasaki K, Hoshi S, Hiraoka T, Oshika T (2020) Deterioration of contrast sensitivity in eyes with epiphora due to lacrimal passage obstruction. PLoS ONE 15(5): e0233295. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233295

Editor: Michele Madigan, Save Sight Institute, AUSTRALIA

Received: December 5, 2019; Accepted: May 2, 2020; Published: May 19, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Tasaki et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Patients with epiphora caused by lacrimal passage obstruction often complain of vision-related symptoms. Although the decrease in visual function is rarely detected by conventional visual acuity measurements, several studies have assessed and revealed the negative effects of epiphora on the patient’s quality of vision (QoV) and optical quality. QoV is assessed by measuring functional visual acuity (FVA), which demonstrates the change in visual acuity (VA) over time [1,2]. Patients with lacrimal passage obstruction experience significant deterioration in FVA, and an increase in higher-order aberrations until they undergo lacrimal passage intubation [3]. The vision-related quality of life is also significantly impaired before silicone tube intubation for lacrimal passage obstruction, composite score from the 25-item national eye institute visual function questionnaire (NEIVFQ-25) improved 76.3 ± 11.5 to 82.0 ± 11.3 (p = 0.001) after silicone tube intubation [4].

Contrast sensitivity, which is the ability to detect differences in luminance between adjacent areas, is a fundamental feature of vision. The measurement of contrast sensitivity provides useful information about QoV that may not be obtained by standard VA testing [5–9]. Contrast sensitivity is reduced in epiphora induced by conjunctivochalasis [10] or instillation of a gel-forming solution or particle suspension [11]. As a result, we hypothesize that contrast sensitivity will also be reduced in eyes with epiphora due to lacrimal passage obstruction. Thus, we aimed to assess contrast sensitivity as a measure of QoV, using different methods in adult eyes with lacrimal passage obstruction.

Materials and methods

This study was a single institutional prospective case series, approved by the institutional review board of the University of Tsukuba Hospital (H27-153), and adhered to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. The nature and possible consequences of the study were explained in detail, following which all patients provided informed consent.

Patient population

Patients with unilateral lacrimal passage obstruction who visited the University of Tsukuba Hospital between November 2015 to July 2019 and had a best-corrected distance VA of 20/20 or better in both eyes measured by Snellen testing were considered for enrollment. The inclusion criteria were symptoms of epiphora, and the presence of at least one of the following dacryoendoscopic findings: nasolacrimal duct obstruction, canalicular obstruction, or punctual obstruction. The exclusion criteria were congenital lacrimal duct obstruction, acute dacryocystitis, and a history of ocular surface surgery. Patients with cortical cataract formation in the central lens, unilateral intraocular lens implantation, anisocoria, other ocular diseases, or a history of treatment that might affect contrast sensitivity were also excluded. Patients receiving ophthalmic solution stopped using ophthalmic solution 4 weeks before examinations. A total of 57 patients (men: 17, women: 40; mean age: 60.0 ± 11.4 years) with unilateral lacrimal passage obstruction participated in our study. Table 1 presents the classification of the types of obstruction diagnosed in all the participants. The patients presented with epiphora for a median duration of 9 (range 2–82, interquartile range 3–20.5) months.

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Type of obstruction based on dacryoendoscopy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233295.t001

Assessment of tear meniscus

Cross-sectional images of the lower tear meniscus were captured vertically across the central cornea using swept-source anterior segment optical coherence tomography (OCT) (SS-1000, CASIA; Tomey Corp, Nagoya, Japan). The OCT images were processed using the in-built software. The principles, technique, and reproducibility of this device for evaluating tear meniscus have been described previously [12,13]. Lower tear meniscus height (TMH) and lower tear meniscus area (TMA) were calculated from the cross-sectional OCT images of the lower tear meniscus. The measurement was performed between 4 and 5 seconds after blinking, with spontaneous eye-opening.

Assessment of contrast sensitivity

We measured three indices of contrast sensitivity function: contrast sensitivity (using the CSV-1000E chart), low-contrast VA (using the CSV-1000LanC10% chart), and letter contrast sensitivity (using the CSV-1000LV chart), which were obtained from Vector Vision CO., Greenville, OH, U.S.A. The pupils of the eyes were undilated during these monocular tests, and these tests were performed under photopic conditions. The testing distance was 2.5 m, with the best spectacle correction. The fluorescent luminance source of the instrument, which was automatically calibrated to 85 cd/m2, provided background illumination for the translucent chart.

The CSV-1000E chart has vertical sine-wave gratings at four spatial frequencies, i.e., 3, 6, 12, and 18 cycles/degree, and each spatial frequency has eight different levels of contrast. Each row consists of eight pairs of circular patches and includes sine waves of a single spatial frequency. One patch of each pair presents a grating, and the other patch is blank. The patients were asked to identify the patch with the grating, and the contrast level of the last correct response was defined as the contrast threshold in logarithmic values for each frequency [14]. The area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) was calculated from these data, according to the method described by Applegate et al. [15]. The AULCSF was determined as the integration of the fitted third-order polynomials of the log contrast sensitivity units between the fixed limits of 0.48 (corresponding to three cycles/degree) and 1.26 (18 cycles/degree) on the log spatial frequency scale. This presents contrast sensitivity data as one number and makes statistical analysis easier.

The CSV-1000LanC10% chart uses the Landolt ring as the optotype under 10% low-contrast. There are five letters per line, and each one-line step represents a change of 0.1 logMAR units. Low-contrast VA was scored by assigning a value of 0.02 logMAR units for each correctly identified letter.

The CSV-1000LV chart uses letter optotypes. Each letter is of the same size and is of low spatial frequency (2.4 cycles/degree). There are eight contrast levels (standard, 35.5%, 17.8%, 8.9%, 6.3%, 4.5%, 2.2%, and 1.1%), and each contrast level has three letters. The test results were recorded as the number of correctly identified letters and not as the contrast sensitivity or contrast threshold [16,17].

Statistical analyses

Normally distributed data obtained from the affected eyes were compared with the contralateral eyes using the paired t-test (two-tailed test). Data that were not normally distributed were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Analysis of the correlation between the difference in tear meniscus dimension (TMH and TMA) and the difference in QoV (BCVA and contrast sensitivity) of the affected and contralateral eyes were evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficient. P values < 0.05 were considered significant for all analyses. Statistical analysis was performed using Statcel (add-in software for Microsoft Excel), version 4 (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA).

Results

Comparison of parameters between affected and contralateral eyes

Table 2 shows the comparison of the BCVA, AULCSF, low-contrast VA, letter contrast sensitivity, TMH, and TMA for the affected and contralateral eyes. BCVA was comparable for both eyes, while AULCSF was significantly lower in the affected eye when compared to the contralateral eye (P = 0.032, Wilcoxon signed-rank test). Fig 1 shows the contrast sensitivity at four specific frequencies for the affected and contralateral eyes. There was a significant difference in contrast sensitivity at 12 cycles/degree (P < 0.005, paired t-test), while there was no significant difference in contrast sensitivity at the other three spatial frequencies.

thumbnail
Download:
Fig 1. Contrast sensitivity at four specific frequencies in the affected and contralateral eyes.

There was a significant difference in contrast sensitivity at 12 cycles/degree (*P < 0.005; paired t-test). Values are expressed as mean ± SD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233295.g001

thumbnail
Download:
Table 2. Comparison between the measured parameters for the affected and contralateral eyes.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0233295.t002

No significant differences were observed in the low-contrast VA (P = 0.654, paired t-test) and letter contrast sensitivity (P = 0.314, paired t-test) between the affected and contralateral eyes. The lower tear meniscus parameters determined by the TMH and TMA were significantly higher in the affected eye, when compared to the contralateral eye (P < 0.005, paired t-test).

Correlations between the difference in tear meniscus and the difference in quality of vision of affected and contralateral eyes

The difference in AULCSF of the affected and contralateral eyes did not correlate with the difference in TMH (r = -0.09, p = 0.491) or TMA (r = 0.04, p = 0.784). The difference in log contrast sensitivity in 12cpd was neither correlated to the difference in TMH (r = 0.01, p = 0.931) and in TMA (r = 0.09, p = 0.502). As for other contrast sensitivity measurements, the difference in Low-contrast visual acuity was not correlated to the difference in TMH (r = 0.09, p = 0.498) and in TMA (r = -0.02, p = 0.862). Letter contrast sensitivity was negatively correlated to TMH (r = -0.26, p = 0.044) but was not correlated to TMA (r = -0.20, p = 0.132). The difference in BCVA was not correlated to the difference in TMH (r = 0.12, p = 0.358) and in TMA (r = 0.07, p = 0.601).

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to report a reduction in contrast sensitivity in eyes with epiphora caused by unilateral lacrimal passage obstruction. Although there were no significant differences in the conventional BCVA between eyes with epiphora and the contralateral eyes; the contrast sensitivity calculated as AULCSF was significantly decreased in the eyes with lacrimal passage obstruction and epiphora.

Contrast sensitivity, which is related to the deterioration in the quality of vision, is reduced in various ocular diseases, such as cataract [18,19], glaucoma [20], vitreous floaters [21], age-related macular degeneration [20,22], and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders [23], and also in refractive abnormalities such as LASIK intervention [24,25], myopia [26], and multifocal contact lenses [27,28]. How well a patient sees at the higher spatial frequency channels, which is well captured by conventional measures of visual acuity, does not necessarily predict vision at middle and lower frequencies [29]. For example, increased higher-order aberrations in eyes with LASIK intervention cause deterioration of contrast sensitivity while visual acuity is not affected [25]. Contrast sensitivity tests are more sensitive than standard VA testing and should be performed in patients with various tears/corneal abnormalities. Since a decline in VA is rarely detected in patients with epiphora caused by lacrimal passage obstruction, it is crucial to assess contrast sensitivity function to understand the link between the symptoms and their impact on the quality of life. Moreover, activities related to the quality of life, including driving [19,30], mobility, walking speed [31,32], reading speed [33,34], and computer task accuracy [35] are reportedly associated with contrast sensitivity. Patients with epiphora often have difficulties in driving, descending stairs, reading books, or text on computer monitors, which might be affected by deterioration of contrast sensitivity.

Deterioration of contrast sensitivity occurs in dry eye disease, a common disease characterized by abnormalities in the tear film on the ocular surface. Koh et al. reported that AULCSF decreased to 1.24 ± 0.16 in patients with dry eye, while that of normal eyes was 1.35 ± 0.11 (the participants’ ages were approximately 50 years in both groups) [36]. In our study, the AULCSF was 1.35 ± 0.15 in the unaffected eyes, which was comparable with the findings of Koh et al. However, the AULCSF in the affected eyes was 1.32 ± 0.16 in our group and exhibited a significantly lower deterioration compared to that in patients with dry eye in the above-mentioned study.

Contrast sensitivity in high spatial frequencies was affected in epiphora caused by lacrimal passage obstruction. Contrast sensitivity in low spatial frequencies are critical for orientation-mobility performance [37] such as walking or stair ascent/descent [38]. At the same time, contrast sensitivity in high spatial frequencies is also thought to have an important role for fine scale visual information in word perception [39]. So it is reasonable for patients with lacrimal passage obstruction to have difficulties in recognizing traffic signs when driving or reading books with small letters. Contrast sensitivity function in high spatial frequencies tends to worsen with the deterioration of optical quality caused by diseases, such as cataract [40], dry eye [41], and after refractive surgery [24,42]. High spatial frequency components of the retinal image significantly deteriorate with optical defocus, while low spatial frequency inputs remain relatively unchanged [43].

AULCSF was not correlated with tear meniscus parameters in this study. Similarly, Koh et al. reported that TM parameters were not correlated to quality of vision or optical quality in patients with epiphora due to nasolacrimal passage obstruction [3]. We hypothesized that quality of vision, such as contrast sensitivity, is reduced by not only TM over volume but also abnormality of tear film other than volume, such as viscosity or clarity. Hiraoka et al. reported that increased light scattering after instillation of brinzolamide cause deterioration of contrast sensitivity [11]. In patients with lacrimal passage obstruction, it is possible that light scattering may increase because of excessive retention of proteins in tear film not excreted to nasal fossa. Although there was no difference in letter contrast sensitivity between affected and contralateral eyes, the difference in letter contrast sensitivity of the affected and contralateral eyes was negatively correlated to the difference in TMH. We need to conduct a further study with a larger sample size to discuss this result.

In this study, there was a significant difference in AULCF between affected and contralateral eye. Furthermore, there were no significant differences seen in either letter contrast sensitivity or in low contrast VA. AULCSF assesses the broad contrast sensitivity function from low to high spatial frequency, while letter contrast sensitivity and low-contrast VA assess the contrast sensitivity function from limited spatial frequency. As a result, AULSCF might be more sensitive than letter contrast sensitivity and low-contrast VA [44]. Letter contrast sensitivity and low-contrast VA are simplified methods in clinical use but may not be an appropriate method to evaluate a contrast sensitivity function in patients with lacrimal passage obstruction.

One limitation of this study is that the contralateral eyes were different from the normal eyes. Although we confirmed that the lacrimal passage was intact using the lacrimal passage irrigation test, there might have been subclinical stenosis of lacrimal passage in the contralateral eye. Hence, it was meaningful to compare the parameters of the affected and contralateral eye with paired sample statistical analysis. Various types of lacrimal passage obstruction were included in this study. Future studies with larger sample sizes may analyze contrast sensitivity with each type of obstruction. Also, other ocular surface-related parameters such as blink rate should be assessed in a further study since it could impact visual function measures, including contrast sensitivity function.

In conclusion, contrast sensitivity function underwent a significant decline in eyes with epiphora caused by lacrimal passage obstruction. Thus, contrast sensitivity measurement might aid our understanding of visual disturbances in patients with lacrimal passage obstruction and also serve as one of the decisive parameters for surgical interventions in addition to a risk of dacryocystitis or developing intractable conjunctivitis.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.jp) for English language editing.

References

  1. 1. Ishida R, Kojima T, Dogru M, Kaido M, Matsumoto Y, Tanaka M, et al. The application of a new continuous functional visual acuity measurement system in dry eye syndromes. Am J Ophthalmol. 2005;139: 253–258. pmid:15733985
  2. 2. Kaido M, Dogru M, Ishida R, Tsubota K. Concept of functional visual acuity and its applications. Cornea. 2007;26: S29–S35. pmid:17881912
  3. 3. Koh S, Inoue Y, Ochi S, Takai Y, Maeda N, Nishida K. Quality of vision in eyes with epiphora undergoing Lacrimal Passage Intubation. Am J Ophthalmol. 2017;181: 71–78. pmid:28673750
  4. 4. Kabata Y, Goto S, Takahashi G, Tsuneoka H. Vision-related quality of life in patients undergoing silicone tube intubation for lacrimal passage obstructions. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;152: 147–150. pmid:21570053
  5. 5. Perez-Santonja J, Sakla HF, Alio JL. Contrast sensitivity after laser in situ keratomileusis. J Cataract Refract Surg. 1998;24: 183–189. pmid:9530592
  6. 6. Verdon W, Bullimore M, Maloney RK. Visual performance after photorefractive keratectomy. A prospective study. Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114: 1465–1472. pmid:8953977
  7. 7. Ghaith AA, Daniel J, Stulting RD, Thompson KP, Lynn M. Contrast sensitivity and glare disability after radial keratotomy and photorefractive keratectomy. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998;116: 12–18. pmid:9445203
  8. 8. Krasnov MM, Avetisov SE, Makashova NV, Mamikonian VR. The effect of radial keratotomy on contrast sensitivity. Am J Ophthalmol. 1988;105: 651–654. pmid:3377042
  9. 9. Rubin GS, West SK, Muñoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, Zeger S, Schein O, et al. A comprehensive assessment of visual impairment in a population of older Americans. The SEE Study. Salisbury Eye Evaluation Project. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997;38: 557–568. pmid:9071208
  10. 10. Qiu W, Zhang M, Xu T, Liu Z, Lv H, Wang W, et al. Evaluation of the effects of conjunctivochalasis excision on tear stability and contrast sensitivity. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 37570. pmid:27892479
  11. 11. Hiraoka T, Daito M, Okamoto F, Kiuchi T, Oshika T. Contrast sensitivity and optical quality of the eye after instillation of timolol maleate gel-forming solution and brinzolamide ophthalmic suspension. Ophthalmology. 2010;117: 2080–2087. pmid:20656353
  12. 12. Fukuda R, Usui T, Miyai T, Yamagami S, Amano S. Tear meniscus evaluation by anterior segment swept-source optical coherence tomography. Am J Ophthalmol. 2013;155: 620–624. pmid:23317654
  13. 13. Ohtomo K, Ueta T, Fukuda R, Usui T, Miyai T, Shirakawa R, et al. Tear meniscus volume changes in dacryocystorhinostomy evaluated with quantitative measurement using anterior segment optical coherence tomography. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2014;55: 2057–2061. pmid:24474266
  14. 14. Pomerance GN, Evans DW. Test-retest reliability of the CSV-1000 contrast test and its relationship to glaucoma therapy. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1994;35: 3357–3361. pmid:8056510
  15. 15. Applegate RA, Howland HC, Sharp RP, Cottingham AJ, Yee RW. Corneal aberrations and visual performance after radial keratotomy. J Refract Surg. 1998;14: 397–407. pmid:9699163
  16. 16. Ninomiya S, Maeda N, Kuroda T, Fujikado T, Tano Y. Comparison of ocular higher-order aberrations and visual performance between photorefractive keratectomy and laser in situ keratomileusis for myopia. Semin Ophthalmol. 2003;18: 29–34. pmid:12759858
  17. 17. Maeda N, Sato S, Watanabe H, Inoue Y, Fujikado T, Shimomura Y, et al. Prediction of letter contrast sensitivity using videokeratographic indices. Am J Ophthalmol. 2000;129: 759–63. pmid:10926985
  18. 18. Datta S, Foss AJ, Grainge MJ, Gregson RM, Zaman A, Masud T, et al. The importance of acuity, stereopsis, and contrast sensitivity for health-related quality of life in elderly women with cataracts. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2008;49: 1–6. pmid:18172067
  19. 19. Ni W, Li X, Hou Z, Zhang H, Qiu W, Wanget W. Impact of cataract surgery on vision-related life performances: the usefulness of Real-Life Vision Test for cataract surgery outcomes evaluation. Eye (Lond). 2015;29: 1545–1554.
  20. 20. Karadeniz SU, Kocakaya Altundal AE, Altin Ekin M. Comparison of vision-related quality of life in primary open-angle glaucoma and dry-type age-related macular degeneration. Eye (Lond). 2017;31: 395–405.
  21. 21. Mamou J, Wa CA, Yee KM, Silverman RH, Ketterling JA, Sadun AA, et al. Ultrasound-based quantification of vitreous floaters correlates with contrast sensitivity and quality of life. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2015;56: 1611–1617. pmid:25613948
  22. 22. Roh M, Selivanova A, Shin HJ, Miller JW, Jackson ML. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity are two important factors affecting vision-related quality of life in advanced age-related macular degeneration. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0196481. pmid:29746512
  23. 23. Schmidt F, Zimmermann H, Mikolajczak J, Oertel FC, Pache F, Weinhold M, et al. Severe structural and functional visual system damage leads to profound loss of vision-related quality of life in patients with neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders. Mult Scler Relat Disord. 2017;11: 45–50. pmid:28104256
  24. 24. Montes-Mico R, Rodriguez-Galietero A, Alio JL, Cerviño A. Contrast sensitivity after LASIK flap creation with a femtosecond laser and a mechanical microkeratome. J Refract Surg. 2007;23: 188–192. pmid:17326358
  25. 25. Oshika T, Tokunaga T, Samejima T, Miyata K, Kawana K, Kaji Y. Influence of pupil diameter on the relation between ocular higher-order aberration and contrast sensitivity after laser in situ keratomileusis. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2006;47: 1334–1338. pmid:16565365
  26. 26. Stoimenova BD. The effect of myopia on contrast thresholds. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2007;48: 2080–2087.
  27. 27. Llorente-Guillemot A, Garcia-Lazaro S, Ferrer-Blasco T, Perez-Cambrodi RJ, Cervino A. Visual performance with simultaneous vision multifocal contact lenses. Clin Exp Optom. 2012;95: 54–59. pmid:22070196
  28. 28. Przekoracka K, Michalak K, Olszewski J, Zeri F, Michalski A, Paluch J, et al. Contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in subjects wearing multifocal contact lenses with high additions designed for myopia progression control. Cont Lens Anterior Eye. 2020;43: 33‐39. pmid:31843372
  29. 29. Richman J, Spaeth GL, Wirostko B. Contrast sensitivity basics and a critique of currently available tests. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013;39: 1100–1106. pmid:23706926
  30. 30. Owsley C, Ball K, McGwin G Jr, Sloane ME, Roenker DL, White MF, et al. Visual processing impairment and risk of motor vehicle crash among older adults. JAMA. 1998;279: 1083–1088. pmid:9546567
  31. 31. Marron JA, Bailey IL. Visual factors and orientation-mobility performance. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1982;59: 413–426. pmid:7102800
  32. 32. Donoghue OA, Ryan H, Duggan E, Finucane C, Savva GM, Cronin H, et al. Relationship between fear of falling and mobility varies with visual function among older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2014;14: 827–836. pmid:24215140
  33. 33. Whittaker SG, Lovie-Kitchin J. Visual requirements for reading. Optom Vis Sci. 1993;70: 54–65. pmid:8430009
  34. 34. Crossland MD, Culham LE, Rubin GS. Predicting reading fluency in patients with macular disease. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82: 11–17. pmid:15630399
  35. 35. Scott IU, Feuer WJ, Jacko JA. Impact of visual function on computer task accuracy and reaction time in a cohort of patients with age-related macular degeneration. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002;133: 350–357. pmid:11860972
  36. 36. Koh S, Maeda N, Ikeda C, Asonuma S, Ogawa M, Hiraoka T, et al. The effect of ocular surface regularity on contrast sensitivity and straylight in dry eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2017;58: 2647–2651. pmid:28524927
  37. 37. Turano KA, Dagnelie G, Herdman SJ. Visual stabilization of posture in persons with central visual field loss. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1996;37: 1438–1491.
  38. 38. West SK, Rubin GS, Broman AT, Munoz B, Bandeen-Roche K, Turano K. How does visual impairment affect performance on tasks of everyday life? The SEE Project. Archives of Ophthalmology. 2002;120: 774–780. pmid:12049583
  39. 39. Patching GR, Jordan TR. Spatial frequency sensitivity differences between adults of good and poor reading ability. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005;46: 2219–2224. pmid:15914644
  40. 40. Elliott DB, Gilchrist J, Whitaker D. Contrast sensitivity and glare sensitivity changes with three types of cataract morphology: Are these techniques necessary in a clinical evaluation of cataract? Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 1989;9: 25–30. pmid:2594373
  41. 41. Ridder WH 3rd, Tomlinson A, Paugh J. Effect of artificial tears on visual performance in subjects with dry eye. Optom Vis Sci. 2005;82: 835–842. pmid:16189494
  42. 42. Padmanabhan P, Mrochen M, Basuthkar S, Viswanathan D, Joseph R. Wavefront-guided versus wavefront-optimized laser in situ keratomileusis: contralateral comparative study. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2008;34: 389–397. pmid:18299062
  43. 43. Georgeson MA, Sullivan GD. Contrast constancy: deblurring in human vision by spatial frequency channels. J Physiol. 1975;252: 627–656. pmid:1206570
  44. 44. Parede TRR, Torricelli AMM, Mukai A, Netto MV, Bechara SJ. Quality of vision in refractive and cataract surgery, indirect measurers: review article. Arq Bras Oftalmol. 2013;76: 386–390. pmid:24510091