Is there a learning effect in adaptometry in normal subjects?

John B Christoforidis, R. C. Caruso

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose. Test vs. retest changes in the dark adaptation (DA) function of normal subjects were measured to determine if learning effects could be documented. Methods. 16 normal subjects (12 women, 4 men, whose age ranged from 24 to 52 yrs) with no previous adaptometry experience were studied. The average test-retest interval period was 1.35 months. DA was measured with a Goldmann-Weekers adaptometer, modified to use the von Békésy tracking method. The rod and cone limbs of the DA function were fit with the model: thresholds + a+b-time/c The parameters of the DA function were analyzed with paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results. No clinically significant differences between test and retest were documented in the means of any of the parameters of the DA function (acones: -2.44 vs. -2.33 log cd/m2, bcones: 1.21 vs. 1.23 log cd/m2, Ccones 0-93 vs. 0.91 min, arods: -4.90 vs. -4.86 log cd/m2, brods: 5.43 vs. 5.23 log cd/m2, Crods: 6.85 vs. 7.12 min, rod-cone break: 5.15 vs, 5.05 min). All these differences were not statistically significant, with the exception of the one for acones (p = 0.01 in both tests). Conclusions. These findings suggest that, in normal subjects, there are few, if any, learning effects in adaptometry analogous to those seen in static perimetry. Therefore, any differences between test and retest are probably indicative of actual changes in the DA function.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalInvestigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science
Volume38
Issue number4
StatePublished - 1997
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Dark Adaptation
Learning
Vertebrate Photoreceptor Cells
Visual Field Tests
Nonparametric Statistics
Extremities

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Is there a learning effect in adaptometry in normal subjects? / Christoforidis, John B; Caruso, R. C.

In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Vol. 38, No. 4, 1997.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{e7956457ae5e47c5aee65c056fe2cb79,
title = "Is there a learning effect in adaptometry in normal subjects?",
abstract = "Purpose. Test vs. retest changes in the dark adaptation (DA) function of normal subjects were measured to determine if learning effects could be documented. Methods. 16 normal subjects (12 women, 4 men, whose age ranged from 24 to 52 yrs) with no previous adaptometry experience were studied. The average test-retest interval period was 1.35 months. DA was measured with a Goldmann-Weekers adaptometer, modified to use the von B{\'e}k{\'e}sy tracking method. The rod and cone limbs of the DA function were fit with the model: thresholds + a+b-time/c The parameters of the DA function were analyzed with paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results. No clinically significant differences between test and retest were documented in the means of any of the parameters of the DA function (acones: -2.44 vs. -2.33 log cd/m2, bcones: 1.21 vs. 1.23 log cd/m2, Ccones 0-93 vs. 0.91 min, arods: -4.90 vs. -4.86 log cd/m2, brods: 5.43 vs. 5.23 log cd/m2, Crods: 6.85 vs. 7.12 min, rod-cone break: 5.15 vs, 5.05 min). All these differences were not statistically significant, with the exception of the one for acones (p = 0.01 in both tests). Conclusions. These findings suggest that, in normal subjects, there are few, if any, learning effects in adaptometry analogous to those seen in static perimetry. Therefore, any differences between test and retest are probably indicative of actual changes in the DA function.",
author = "Christoforidis, {John B} and Caruso, {R. C.}",
year = "1997",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
journal = "Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science",
issn = "0146-0404",
publisher = "Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is there a learning effect in adaptometry in normal subjects?

AU - Christoforidis, John B

AU - Caruso, R. C.

PY - 1997

Y1 - 1997

N2 - Purpose. Test vs. retest changes in the dark adaptation (DA) function of normal subjects were measured to determine if learning effects could be documented. Methods. 16 normal subjects (12 women, 4 men, whose age ranged from 24 to 52 yrs) with no previous adaptometry experience were studied. The average test-retest interval period was 1.35 months. DA was measured with a Goldmann-Weekers adaptometer, modified to use the von Békésy tracking method. The rod and cone limbs of the DA function were fit with the model: thresholds + a+b-time/c The parameters of the DA function were analyzed with paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results. No clinically significant differences between test and retest were documented in the means of any of the parameters of the DA function (acones: -2.44 vs. -2.33 log cd/m2, bcones: 1.21 vs. 1.23 log cd/m2, Ccones 0-93 vs. 0.91 min, arods: -4.90 vs. -4.86 log cd/m2, brods: 5.43 vs. 5.23 log cd/m2, Crods: 6.85 vs. 7.12 min, rod-cone break: 5.15 vs, 5.05 min). All these differences were not statistically significant, with the exception of the one for acones (p = 0.01 in both tests). Conclusions. These findings suggest that, in normal subjects, there are few, if any, learning effects in adaptometry analogous to those seen in static perimetry. Therefore, any differences between test and retest are probably indicative of actual changes in the DA function.

AB - Purpose. Test vs. retest changes in the dark adaptation (DA) function of normal subjects were measured to determine if learning effects could be documented. Methods. 16 normal subjects (12 women, 4 men, whose age ranged from 24 to 52 yrs) with no previous adaptometry experience were studied. The average test-retest interval period was 1.35 months. DA was measured with a Goldmann-Weekers adaptometer, modified to use the von Békésy tracking method. The rod and cone limbs of the DA function were fit with the model: thresholds + a+b-time/c The parameters of the DA function were analyzed with paired t-tests and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Results. No clinically significant differences between test and retest were documented in the means of any of the parameters of the DA function (acones: -2.44 vs. -2.33 log cd/m2, bcones: 1.21 vs. 1.23 log cd/m2, Ccones 0-93 vs. 0.91 min, arods: -4.90 vs. -4.86 log cd/m2, brods: 5.43 vs. 5.23 log cd/m2, Crods: 6.85 vs. 7.12 min, rod-cone break: 5.15 vs, 5.05 min). All these differences were not statistically significant, with the exception of the one for acones (p = 0.01 in both tests). Conclusions. These findings suggest that, in normal subjects, there are few, if any, learning effects in adaptometry analogous to those seen in static perimetry. Therefore, any differences between test and retest are probably indicative of actual changes in the DA function.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33749145867&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33749145867&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:33749145867

VL - 38

JO - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

JF - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

SN - 0146-0404

IS - 4

ER -