EC Ophthalmology

Existing methods for measuring functional vision in low-vision individuals may not capture clinically meaningful outcomes. By assessing an individual's ability to identify objects up close in various lighting conditions, we can derive meaningful and comprehensive measures of an individual's visual capabilities in day-to-day tasks. This evaluation offers valuable insights into the functional aspects of vision, shedding light on a person's visual acuity and performance when engaging in tasks that require proximity to objects. Here, we report the development and evaluation of the MLSDT (Multi-Luminance Shape Discrimination Test), including considerations of object sizes, shapes, spacing/organization, and the required number of objects. We also provide assessment of the suitability of the MLSDT in low-vision patients and comparison of its functional performance with low-vision best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) measurement using Freiburg visual acuity. The MLSDT test performance in subjects with different BCVA showed improved object recognition when the size of the objects is increased and/or the luminance level is enhanced.

 Keywords: MLSDT (Multi-Luminance Shape Discrimination Test); Best-Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA); Freiburg Visual Acuity

1. MÁ Solinís., et al. “Treatment of ocular disorders by gene therapy”. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics 95 (2015): 331-342.
2. KG Csaky., et al. “Report from the NEI/FDA ophthalmic clinical trial design and endpoints symposium”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science2 (2008): 479-489.
3. K Schulze-Bonsel., et al. “Visual acuities “hand motion” and “counting fingers” can be quantified with the freiburg visual acuity test”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 47 (2006): 1236-1240.
4. A Gordois., et al. “An estimation of the worldwide economic and health burden of visual impairment”. Global Public Health 5 (2012): 465-481.
5. G Dagnelie., et al. “Performance of real-world functional vision tasks by blind subjects improves after implantation with the Argus(R) II retinal prosthesis system”. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 2 (2017): 152-159.
6. AJ Roman., et al. “Outcome measure for the treatment of cone photoreceptor diseases: orientation to a scene with cone-only contrast”. BMC Ophthalmology 15 (2015): 98.
7. AJ Roman., et al. “Mobility test to assess functional vision in dark-adapted patients with Leber congenital amaurosis”. BMC Ophthalmology1 (2022): 266.
8. DC Chung., et al. “Novel mobility test to assess functional vision in patients with inherited retinal dystrophies”. Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology3 (2018): 247-259.
9. YZ Wang., et al. “Handheld shape discrimination hyperacuity test on a mobile device for remote monitoring of visual function in maculopathy”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 54 (2013): 5497-5505.
10. YZ Wang., et al. “Shape discrimination in age-related macular degeneration”. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science 6 (2002): 2055-2062.
11. M Bach. “The Freiburg visual acuity test-automatic measurement of visual acuity”. Optometry and Vision Science 1 (1996): 49-53.
12. LN Ayton., et al. “Harmonization of outcomes and vision endpoints in vision restoration trials: recommendations from the international HOVER taskforce”. Translational Vision Science and Technology8 (2020): 25-25.
13. DT Hartong., et al. “Retinitis pigmentosa”. The Lancet9549 (2006): 1795-1809.
14. DG Birch., et al. “Yearly rates of rod and cone functional loss in retinitis pigmentosa and cone-rod dystrophy”. Ophthalmology2 (1999): 258-268.
15. AC Jacomuzzi., et al. “Molyneux' question redux”. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 2 (2003): 255-280.