Influence of contrast polarity on the accommodative response

  1. Paula Bernal-Molina 1
  2. José J. Esteve Taboada
  3. Teresa Ferrer Blasco 2
  4. Robert Montés Micó 2
  1. 1 Department of Optics and Optometry and Visual Sciences, University of Valencia, Spain; Interuniversity Laboratory for Research in Vision and Optometry, Mixed Group UVEG-UMU, Spain
  2. 2 Interuniversity Laboratory for Research in Vision and Optometry, Mixed Group UVEG-UMU, Spain
Journal:
Journal of Optometry: peer-reviewed Journal of the Spanish General Council of Optometry

ISSN: 1888-4296

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 12

Issue: 1

Pages: 38-43

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1016/J.OPTOM.2018.03.002 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Journal of Optometry: peer-reviewed Journal of the Spanish General Council of Optometry

Abstract

To assess the changes in the accommodative response of the eye while reading a text under different contrast polarity conditions: black letters on white background (BoW condition) and white letters on black background (WoB condition). Eighteen subjects with ages ranging from 21 to 41 years participated in this experimental study. The accommodative response (AR) of the eye while reading a text with BoW or WoB contrast polarity was obtained objectively with an adaptive optics system that corrected all aberrations but subject's own. Two different letter sizes (visual acuity conditions), shown on a microdisplay, were tested. The AR of each eye was measured with its natural pupil diameter at 0–3 D of accommodative demand from the far point of the eye, with a step of 0.5 D. The slope of the stimulus–response curve was calculated for each subject and condition. The averaged maximum pupil size was bigger for reverse (WoB) than for normal (BoW) contrast with statistical significance. The slopes for the ARs of the four conditions were not significantly different from each other. Contrast polarity does not seem to influence the accommodative response when reading text from an electronic microdisplay.

Bibliographic References

  • Ward, P.A. (1987). The effect of stimulus contrast on the accommodation response. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 7. 9-15
  • Kotulak, J.C.,Schor, C.M. (1987). The effects of optical vergence, contrast, and luminance on the accommodative response to spatially bandpass filtered targets. Vis Res. 27. 1797-1806
  • Ginsburg, A.P. (1978). Cambridge University.
  • Legge, G.E.,Pelli, D.G.,Rubin, G.S.,Schleske, M.M. (1985). Psychophysics of reading – I. Normal vision. Vis Res. 25. 239-252
  • Cushman, W.H. (1986). Reading from microfiche, a VDT, and the printed page: subjective fatigue and performance. Hum Factors. 28. 63-73
  • Legge, G.E.,Rubin, G.S.,Luebker, A. (1987). Psychophysics of reading – V. The role of contrast in normal vision. Vis Res. 27. 1165-1177
  • Legge, G.E.,Parish, D.H.,Luebker, A.,Wurm, L.H. (1990). Psychophysics of reading. XI. Comparing color contrast and luminance contrast. J Opt Soc Am A. 7. 2002-2010
  • Pointer, J.S. (2001). The influence of level and polarity of figure-ground contrast on vision. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 79. 422-425
  • Buchner, A.,Mayr, S.,Brandt, M. (2009). The advantage of positive text-background polarity is due to high display luminance. Ergonomics. 52. 882-886
  • Piepenbrock, C.,Mayr, S.,Buchner, A. (2014). Smaller pupil size and better proofreading performance with positive than with negative polarity displays. Ergonomics. 57. 1670-1677
  • Piepenbrock, C.,Mayr, S.,Mund, I.,Buchner, A. (2013). Positive display polarity is advantageous for both younger and older adults. Ergonomics. 56. 1116-1124
  • Sloan, L.L. (1977). The Williams & Wilkins. Baltimore.
  • Westheimer, G.,Chu, P.,Huang, W.,Tran, T.,Dister, R. (2003). Visual acuity with reversed-contrast charts: II. Clinical investigation. Optom Vis Sci. 80. 749-752
  • Buchner, A.,Baumgartner, N. (2007). Text–background polarity affects performance irrespective of ambient illumination and colour contrast. Ergonomics. 50. 1036-1063
  • Montés-Micó, R.,Esteve-Taboada, J.J.,Bernal-Molina, P.,Ferrer-Blasco, T. (2017). Accommodative stimulus–response curve with emoji symbols. J Ophthalmol. 2017. 5
  • Ciuffreda, K.J.,Hokoda, S.C.,Hung, G.K.,Semmlow, J.L. (1984). Accommodative stimulus/response function in human amblyopia. Doc Ophthalmol. 56. 303-326
  • McBrien, N.A.,Millodot, M. (1987). The relationship between tonic accommodation and refractive error. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 28. 997-1004
  • Abbott, M.L.,Schmid, K.L.,Strang, N.C. (1998). Differences in the accommodation stimulus response curves of adult myopes and emmetropes. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 18. 13-20
  • Jiang, B.C.,White, J.M. (1999). Effect of accommodative adaptation on static and dynamic accommodation in emmetropia and late-onset myopia. Optom Vis Sci. 76. 295-302
  • Bakaraju, R.C.,Yeotikar, N.S.,Srinivas Rao, V. (2007). Accommodative lag versus different stimuli. J Mod Opt. 54. 1299-1305
  • Marcos, S.,Sawides, L.,Gambra, E.,Dorronsoro, C. (2008). Influence of adaptive-optics ocular aberration correction on visual acuity at different luminances and contrast polarities. J Vis. 8. 1-12
  • Taptagaporn, S.,Saito, S. (1990). How display polarity and lighting conditions affect the pupil size of VDT operators. Ergonomics. 33. 201-208
  • Dobres, J.,Chahine, N.,Reimer, B. (2017). Effects of ambient illumination, contrast polarity, and letter size on text legibility under glance-like reading. Appl Ergon. 60. 68-73
  • Ciuffreda, K.J.,Rosenfield, M.,Rosen, J.,Azimi, A.,Ong, E. (1990). Accommodative responses to naturalistic stimuli. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt. 10. 168-174
  • Collins, M.,Davis, B.,Goode, A. (1994). Steady-state accommodation response and VDT screen conditions. Appl Ergon. 25. 334-338
Data source: Dialnet