September 2005
Volume 5, Issue 8
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2005
Comparing estimated and actual visual acuity at high and low luminance
Author Affiliations
  • Johnell O. Brooks
    Psychology Department, Clemson University, USA
  • Richard A. Tyrrell
    Psychology Department, Clemson University, USA
  • Joanne M. Wood
    Centre for Health Research - Optometry, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
  • Benjamin R. Stephens
    Psychology Department, Clemson University, USA
  • Efty P. Stavrou
    Centre for Health Research - Optometry, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Journal of Vision September 2005, Vol.5, 173. doi:10.1167/5.8.173
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Johnell O. Brooks, Richard A. Tyrrell, Joanne M. Wood, Benjamin R. Stephens, Efty P. Stavrou; Comparing estimated and actual visual acuity at high and low luminance. Journal of Vision 2005;5(8):173. doi: 10.1167/5.8.173.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

How well do we know our own visual limitations? To evaluate whether observers appreciate the extent to which low luminance and low contrast affect their own visual acuity, we compared observers' estimates of their own visual acuity with their actual visual acuity. Estimates of acuity were measured using newly refined methodologies. Twenty observers (M = 69 years) were given systematic training in reporting their size estimates using both a magnitude estimation (verbal) technique and a manual matching technique using calipers (manual). The stimuli used during training were Es ranging in size from the observers' threshold to logMAR 1.4 (21.9 cm high) viewed at high luminance (85 cd/m2) at 6 m. Following training, observers dark adapted and then made acuity estimates while wearing goggles containing ND filters (ND 4, 3, 2, 1, or 0) while sitting 6 m from a blank white wall. At each luminance level, they indicated the height of stimuli that they imagined they would be “just able to see as an E” on the wall. Because there was no reliable difference between the verbal and manual acuity estimates for either high or low contrast stimuli, these measures were averaged and then compared with measures of actual acuity. At the higher luminances, the observers' mean high contrast acuity estimates were quite accurate. At lower luminances, however, observers dramatically overestimated their high contrast acuity. At the lowest luminance, the mean estimated high contrast acuity (20/55) was 0.75 log units better than the actual mean acuity (20/300). This trend to overestimate acuity at low luminances was even stronger for low contrast stimuli, where the mean estimated acuity (20/90) was 0.95 log unit better than the actual mean acuity (20/800). We conclude that observers fail to appreciate the extent to which their own acuity is degraded as luminance decreases. This may help explain why drivers are comfortable overdriving their headlights at night.

Brooks, J. O. Tyrrell, R. A. Wood, J. M. Stephens, B. R. Stavrou, E. P. (2005). Comparing estimated and actual visual acuity at high and low luminance [Abstract]. Journal of Vision, 5(8):173, 173a, http://journalofvision.org/5/8/173/, doi:10.1167/5.8.173. [CrossRef]
Footnotes
 Support was received by Clemson University; JOB was supported by a Dwight D. Eisenhower Graduate Transportation Fellowship.
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×