Ophthalmic engineering:the development of novel instrumentation to further research in the field

The principle theme of this thesis is the advancement and expansion of ophthalmic research via the collaboration between professional Engineers and professional Optometrists. The aim has been to develop new and novel approaches and solutions to contemporary problems in the field. The work is sub divided into three areas of investigation; 1) High technology systems, 2) Modification of current systems to increase functionality, and 3) Development of smaller more portable and cost effective systems. High Technology Systems: A novel high speed Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) system with integrated simultaneous high speed photography was developed achieving better operational speed than is currently available commercially. The mechanical design of the system featured a novel 8 axis alignment system. A full set of capture, analysis, and post processing software was developed providing custom analysis systems for ophthalmic OCT imaging, expanding the current capabilities of the technology. A large clinical trial was undertaken to test the dynamics of contact lens edge interaction with the cornea in-vivo. The interaction between lens edge design, lens base curvature, post insertion times and edge positions was investigated. A novel method for correction of optical distortion when assessing lens indentation was also demonstrated. Modification of Current Systems: A commercial autorefractor, the WAM-5500, was modified with the addition of extra hardware and a custom software and firmware solution to produce a system that was capable of measuring dynamic accommodative response to various stimuli in real time. A novel software package to control the data capture process was developed allowing real time monitoring of data by the practitioner, adding considerable functionality of the instrument further to the standard system. The device was used to assess the accommodative response differences between subjects who had worn UV blocking contact lens for 5 years, verses a control group that had not worn UV blocking lenses. While the standard static measurement of accommodation showed no differences between the two groups, it was determined that the UV blocking group did show better accommodative rise and fall times (faster), thus demonstrating the benefits of the modification of this commercially available instrumentation. Portable and Cost effective Systems: A new instrument was developed to expand the capability of the now defunct Keeler Tearscope. A device was developed that provided a similar capability in allowing observation of the reflected mires from the tear film surface, but with the added advantage of being able to record the observations. The device was tested comparatively with the tearscope and other tear film break-up techniques, demonstrating its potential. In Conclusion: This work has successfully demonstrated the advantages of interdisciplinary research between engineering and ophthalmic research has provided new and novel instrumented solutions as well as having added to the sum of scientific understanding in the ophthalmic field.

Evaluation of Melbourne Edge Test contrast sensitivity measures in the visually impaired

Aim: Contrast sensitivity (CS) provides important information on visual function. This study aimed to assess differences in clinical expediency of the CS increment-matched new back-lit and original paper versions of the Melbourne Edge Test (MET) to determine the CS of the visually impaired. Methods: The back-lit and paper MET were administered to 75 visually impaired subjects (28-97 years). Two versions of the back-lit MET acetates were used to match the CS increments with the paper-based MET. Measures of CS were repeated after 30 min and again in the presence of a focal light source directed onto the MET. Visual acuity was measured with a Bailey-Lovie chart and subjects rated how much difficulty they had with face and vehicle recognition. Results: The back-lit MET gave a significantly higher CS than the paper-based version (14.2 ± 4.1 dB vs 11.3 ± 4.3 dB, p < 0.001). A significantly higher reading resulted with repetition of the paper-based MET (by 1.0 ± 1.7 dB, p < 0.001), but this was not evident with the back-lit MET (by 0.1 ± 1.4 dB, p = 0.53). The MET readings were increased by a focal light source, in both the back-lit (by 0.3 ± 0.81, p < 0.01) and paper-based (1.2 ± 1.7, p < 0.001) versions. CS as measured by the back-lit and paper-based versions of the MET was significantly correlated to patients' perceived ability to recognise faces (r = 0.71, r = 0.85 respectively; p < 0.001) and vehicles (r = 0.67, r = 0.82 respectively; p < 0.001), and with distance visual acuity (both r =-0.64; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The CS increment-matched back-lit MET gives higher CS values than the old paper-based test by approximately 3 dB and is more repeatable and less affected by external light sources. Clinically, the MET score provides information on patient difficulties with visual tasks, such as recognising faces. © 2005 The College of Optometrists.

Normative contrast sensitivity values for the back-lit Melbourne Edge Test and the effect of visual impairment

Background: The Melbourne Edge Test (MET) is a portable forced-choice edge detection contrast sensitivity (CS) test. The original externally illuminated paper test has been superseded by a backlit version. The aim of this study was to establish normative values for age and to assess change with visual impairment. Method: The MET was administered to 168 people with normal vision (18-93 years old) and 93 patients with visual impairment (39-97 years old). Distance visual acuity (VA) was measured with a log MAR chart. Results: In those eyes without disease, MET CS was stable until the age of 50 years (23.8 ± .7 dB) after which it decreased at a rate of ≈1.5 dB per decade. Compared with normative values, people with low vision were found to have significantly reduced CS, which could not be totally accounted for by reduced VA. Conclusions: The MET provides a quick and easy measure of CS, which highlights a reduction in visual function that may not be detectable using VA measurements. © 2004 The College of Optometrists.