August 2016
Volume 16, Issue 12
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2016
Optically correcting visual acuity beyond 20/20 improves visual perception: A cautionary tale for studies of special populations
Author Affiliations
  • Lisa Cruz
    University Behavioral Health Care, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
  • Brian Keane
    University Behavioral Health Care, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
  • Sabine Kastner
    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University
  • Thomas Papathomas
    Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
  • Steven Silverstein
    University Behavioral Health Care, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Journal of Vision September 2016, Vol.16, 241. doi:10.1167/16.12.241
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Lisa Cruz, Brian Keane, Sabine Kastner, Thomas Papathomas, Steven Silverstein; Optically correcting visual acuity beyond 20/20 improves visual perception: A cautionary tale for studies of special populations. Journal of Vision 2016;16(12):241. doi: 10.1167/16.12.241.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Background. The vast majority of studies that examine visual processing in special populations ensure that subjects have normal or corrected-to-normal vision, without also reporting whether subject groups are matched on visual acuity (VA) within the normal range. This is problematic because a host of factors impact VA (e.g., aging, schizophrenia) and because optimal VA among healthy adults is better than 20/20. Therefore, we ask: Does refractive error within the normal range alter visual performance? Methods. Ten healthy adults with 20/20 uncorrected binocular VA performed three perceptual tasks—once without eyeglasses and once with eyeglasses so that they could read an additional line (0.11 logMAR units) on a logarithmic eye chart. In the contour integration (CI) task, subjects located an integrated shape embedded in varying quantities of randomly-oriented noise elements; in the collinear facilitation (CF) task, subjects detected a low-contrast element flanked by collinear or orthogonal high-contrast elements; in the discrimination task, subjects discerned the orientation of four briefly-presented, high-contrast pac-man elements. Spatial frequency was modulated in the CI and CF tasks (4-12 cycles/deg) by scaling the entire display. Results. Optical correction enabled observers to integrate contours under noisier conditions (p=.008), detect elements of lower contrast (p=.001) and discriminate orientation differences of smaller magnitude (p=.04). When elements were composed of high (rather than lower) spatial frequency, optical correction conferred a greater benefit for contour integration (p=.003) and a marginally greater benefit for contrast sensitivity (p=.07). Conclusions. Previous studies reporting contour integration, contrast sensitivity, or orientation discrimination effects in aging, development, or psychiatric disorders may need to be re-evaluated if they did not match for VA within the normal range. Our results also offer a surprisingly powerful explanation of individual differences and show that modest reductions in refractive error within the normal range strongly improve visual perception.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016

×
×

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.

×