Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2017 Feb 2;12(2):e0170839.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0170839. eCollection 2017.

Do picture-based charts overestimate visual acuity? Comparison of Kay Pictures, Lea Symbols, HOTV and Keeler logMAR charts with Sloan letters in adults and children

Nicola S Anstice  1 , Robert J Jacobs  1 , Samantha K Simkin  1 , Melissa Thomson  1 , Benjamin Thompson  1   2 , Andrew V Collins  1
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Do picture-based charts overestimate visual acuity? Comparison of Kay Pictures, Lea Symbols, HOTV and Keeler logMAR charts with Sloan letters in adults and children

Nicola S Anstice et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Purpose: Children may be tested with a variety of visual acuity (VA) charts during their ophthalmic care and differences between charts can complicate the interpretation of VA measurements. This study compared VA measurements across four pediatric charts with Sloan letters and identified chart design features that contributed to inter-chart differences in VA.

Methods: VA was determined for right eyes of 25 adults and 17 children (4-9 years of age) using Crowded Kay Pictures, Crowded linear Lea Symbols, Crowded Keeler logMAR, Crowded HOTV and Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) charts in focused and defocused (+1.00 DS optical blur) conditions. In a separate group of 25 adults, we compared the VA from individual Kay Picture optotypes with uncrowded Landolt C VA measurements.

Results: Crowded Kay Pictures generated significantly better VA measurements than all other charts in both adults and children (p < 0.001; 0.15 to 0.30 logMAR). No significant differences were found between other charts in adult participants; children achieved significantly poorer VA measurements on the ETDRS chart compared with pediatric acuity tests. All Kay Pictures optotypes produced better VA (p < 0.001), varying from -0.38 ± 0.13 logMAR (apple) to -0.57 ± 0.10 logMAR (duck), than the reference Landolt C task (mean VA -0.19 ± 0.08 logMAR).

Conclusion: Kay Pictures over-estimated VA in all participants. Variability between Kay Pictures optotypes suggests that shape cues aid in optotype determination. Other pediatric charts offer more comparable VA measures and should be used for children likely to progress to letter charts.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Key features of the acuity charts investigated.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Number of participants able to reach threshold acuity measurements on each of the pediatric tests for the different test distances shown.
Only the ETDRS chart allowed for threshold measurements at the standard (3 m) testing distance for all participants. The number of children able to provide results on the ETDRS chart was less.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Mean (± standard deviation) of VA measurements for adults (white) and children (light grey) in focused conditions and defocused (adults black and children dark grey) conditions.
Fig 4
Fig 4
Bland Altman comparisons of visual acuity measurements between ETDRS and pediatric charts in adults (A-D) and children (E-H and I-L with two outliers removed). A positive bias indicates the second chart gave better acuities.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Visual acuities provided by individual Kay Pictures optotypes compared with a Landolt C target.
All Kay Pictures were more discriminable than the Landolt C. Significant differences (p < 0.002) between individual Kay Pictures are indicated on the figure.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Demonstration of focused and defocused Kay Pictures optotypes (upper and lower left, respectively) compared with a reference Landolt C optotype (upper and lower right).
The stroke width, nominal acuity and amount of defocus are equal in the Kay Pictures and Landolt C targets; however, Kay Picture optotypes, because of their construction principles, are at least twice the size of the Landolt C. Images were constructed in Adobe Photoshop CS6 v13 using the Lens Blur filter.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Lai Y-H, Tseng H-Y, Hsu H-T, Chang S-J, Wang H-Z. Uncorrected visual acuity and noncycloplegic autorefraction predict significant refractive errors in Taiwanese preschool children. Ophthalmology. 2013;120(2):271–6. 10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.08.009 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Holmes JM, Beck RW, Repka MX, Leske DA, Kraker RT, Blair RC, et al. The amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(9):1345–53. Epub 2001/09/27. - PubMed
    1. Avery RA, Ferner RE, Listernick R, Fisher MJ, Gutmann DH, Liu GT. Visual acuity in children with low grade gliomas of the visual pathway: implications for patient care and clinical research. Journal of neuro-oncology. 2012;110(1):1–7. 10.1007/s11060-012-0944-y - DOI - PubMed
    1. Group ViPS. Preschool visual acuity screening with HOTV and Lea symbols: testability and between-test agreement. Optometry & Vision Science. 2004;81(9):678–83. - PubMed
    1. Moke PS, Turpin AH, Beck RW, Holmes JM, Repka MX, Birch EE, et al. Computerized method of visual acuity testing: adaptation of the amblyopia treatment study visual acuity testing protocol. Am J Ophthalmol. 2001;132(6):903–9. Epub 2001/12/04. - PubMed

Publication types