medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Neurología y Neurocirugía

2014, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Arch Neurocien 2014; 19 (3)

Study on dynamic visual acuital specialty medical surgical and non study National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery

Pesci-Eguía LM, González-Olhovich I, Lozano ED, Escanio-Cortés ME

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 147-152
PDF size: 215.99 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The visual acuity (VA) is the ability to discriminate fine details of an object in the visual field. There are multiple methods to measure the VA, one of the most used is the Snellen test, however it does not evaluate completely visual function, it is necessary to use other tests such as contrast sensitivity test, chromatic vision test, stereopsis and dynamic visual acuity. Previous studies have demonstrated differences in some of these functions such as dynamic visual acuity depending on the subject’s specific activity. Objectives: the aim of this study was to assess the visual function of surgical and not surgical residents in the National Institute of Neurology and Neurosurgery “Dr. Manuel Velasco Suárez” (INNN) and secondarily to make a comparison between the two groups to determine if there was a significant dif ference. Methods: we conducted a longitudinal prospective open study which included residents of surgical and non-surgical specialties at INNN, all them were conducted of vision Snellen test, color Ishihara’s vision test, Stereopsis, dynamic visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Results: all of the cases had best visual acuity equal to or better than 20/20, in all cases the chromatic sensitivity was 8/8. Contrast sensitivity and Stereopsis were appropriate in 100% of cases. We found a statistically significant difference in contrast sensitivity test between the surgical and the non-surgical groups, being better in the first showing a value of 3.2 (p = 0.011). Similarly there was a shorter response time in the dynamic visual acuity test in surgical residents at high and medium contrasts (1.00 and 1.50 in the Pelli-Robson’s algorithm) was 0.1-0.2 seconds faster response in this group (p = 0.01). Best response in women to stimulation in low contrast (2.00) in the non-surgical group was obser ved (p = 0.026). Stereoacuity was higher in the surgical group, with a value of 20 seconds of arc vs 25 seconds of arc in the nonsurgical group (p = 0.007). There were no differences on Stereopsis, contrast sensitivity and time of response related to the age.


REFERENCES

  1. Pérez C, Rando D, Toro C, Torres R. Diagnóstico y evaluación del funcionamiento visual. Aljibe 1994.

  2. Brown B. Dynamic visual acuity, eye movement and peripheral acuity for moving targets. Vision Research 12 305-321.

  3. Campbell FW, Green DG. Optical and retinal factors affecting visual resolution. The Journal of Physiology 1985;(181);576- 93.

  4. Pelli DG, Robson JG. The design of a new letter chart for measuring contrast sensitivity. Clinical Visual Sciences 1988;2(3):187-199.

  5. Quevedo L, Aznar-Casanova J, Merindano D, Solé Joan. Una tarea para evaluar la agudeza visual dinámica y una valoración de la estabilidad de sus mediciones. Psicológica 2010;31: 109-128.

  6. Banks PM, Moore LA, Liu C, Wu B. Dynamic visual acuity: a review. The South African Optometrist 63(2), 58-64.

  7. Comitee on vision of the National Research Council. Emergent techniques for Assessment of Visual Per for mance. Washington: National academy Press 1985.

  8. Miller JW, Ludvigh E. The effect of relative motion on visual acutiy. Surv Ophthal 1962;7:83-116.

  9. Kohl P, Coffey B, Reichow A. A Comparative Study of Visual Performance in Jet Fighter Pilots and Non-Pilots. J Behavioral Optometry 1991;5:123-26.

  10. Morrison TR. A review of dynamic visual acuity. Naval aerospace medical research laboratory, 1980.

  11. Coffey B, Reichow AW. Optometric evaluation of the elite athlete. Problems in optometr y 1990;2(1): 32-59.

  12. Hoshina K, Tagami Y, Mimura O, Edagawa H. A study of static, kinetic and dynamic visual acuity in 102 japanese professional baseball players. Clinical Ophthalmology 2013:7 627-32.

  13. Rouse MW, Deland P, Christian R, Hawley J. A comparison study of dynamic visual acuity between athletes and non athletes. J Am Optom Assoc 1988;59:946-50.

  14. Wood JM, Abernethy B. An assessment of the ef ficacy of sports vision trainning programs. Optom Vis Sci 1997;74:646-59.

  15. Quevedo L, Pérez A. Cardona G. Diferencias de género en agudeza visual dinámica y sensibilidad al contraste. Gaceta Optométrica 2012; 475.

  16. Agostini V, Chiaramello E, Canavese L, Bredariol C, Knaflitz M. Postural sway in volleyball players. Human Movement Science 2013;32:3:445-3.

  17. Uchida Y, Kudoh D, Higuchi T, Honda M, Kanosue K. Dinamyc visual acuity in baseball players is due to superior tracking abilities. Medicine & Science in Sports & Excersise 2013;45:2, 319-25.

  18. Quevedo L, Aznar J, Merindano D, Cardona G, Solé J. Comparison of dymanic visual acuity between water polo players and sedentar y students. Research Quarterly for Excersise and Sport 2011;82:4, 644-51.

  19. Millslagle D. Dynamic Visual Acuity and coincidenceanticipation timing by experienced and inexperienced women players of fast pitch softball. Perceptual and Motor Skills 2000;90:2, 498-504.

  20. Li R, Polat Uri, Makows W, Bavelier D. Enhancing the contrast sensitivity function trough action video game training. Nature Neuroscience 2003;29:423(6939)534-7.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com