Tablet App halometer for the assessment of dysphotopsia

Purpose To assess the validity and repeatability of the Aston Halometer. Setting University clinic, United Kingdom. Design Prospective, repeated-measures experimental study. Methods The halometer comprises a bright light-emitting-diode (LED) glare source in the center of an iPad4. Letters subtending 0.21° (∼0.3 logMAR) were moved centrifugally from the LED in 0.05 degree steps in 8 orientations separated by 45 degrees for each of 4 contrast levels (1000, 500, 100, and 25 Weber contrast units [Cw]) in random order. Bangerter occlusion foils were inserted in front of the right eye to simulate monocular glare conditions in 20 subjects (mean age 27.7 ± 3.1 years). Subjects were positioned 2 meters from the screen in a dark room with the iPad controlled from an iPhone via Bluetooth operated by the researcher. The C-Quant straylight meter was also used with each of the foils to measure the level of straylight over the retina. Halometry and straylight repeatability was assessed at a second visit. Results Halo size increased with the different occlusion foils and target contrasts (F = 29.564, P <.001) as expected and in a pattern similar to straylight measures (F = 80.655, P <0.001). Lower contrast letters showed better sensitivity but larger glare-obscured areas, resulting in ceiling effects caused by the screen's field-of-view, with 500 Cw being the best compromise. Intraobserver and interobserver repeatability of the Aston Halometer was good (500Cw: 0.84 to 0.93 and 0.53 to 0.73) and similar to the straylight meter. Conclusion The halometer provides a sensitive, repeatable way of quantifying a patient-recognized form of disability glare in multiple orientations to add objectivity to subjectively reported discomfort glare.

Mobile app reading speed test

Aim: To validate the accuracy and repeatability of a mobile app reading speed test compared with the traditional paper version. Method: Twenty-one subjects wearing their full refractive correction glasses read 14 sentences of decreasing print size between 1.0 and -0.1 logMAR, each consisting of 14 words (Radner reading speed test) at 40 cm with a paper-based chart and twice on iPad charts. Time duration was recorded with a stop watch for the paper chart and on the App itself for the mobile chart allowing critical print size (CPS) and optimal reading speed (ORS) to be derived objectively. Results: The ORS was higher for the mobile app charts (194±29 wpm; 195±25 wpm) compared with the paper chart (166±20 wpm; F=57.000, p<0.001). The CPS was lower for the mobile app charts (0.17±0.20 logMAR; 0.18±0.17 logMAR) compared with the paper chart (0.25±0.17 logMAR; F=5.406, p=0.009). The mobile app test had a mean difference repeatability of 0.30±22.5 wpm, r=0.917 for ORS, and a CPS of 0.0±0.2 logMAR, r=0.769. Conclusions: Repeatability of the app reading speed test is as good (ORS) or better (CPS) than previous studies on the paper test. While the results are not interchangeable with paper-based charts, mobile app tablet-based tests of reading speed are reliable and rapid to perform, with the potential to capture functional visual ability in research studies and clinical practice.