Does a yellow filter improve visual object categorization in normal aging?

The Effect of Yellow Filter Use on Standard Automated Perimetry and Contrast Sensitivity in Healthy Individuals

Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate the effect of two yellow filters (category 1: visible light transmission {VLT} from 80% to 43%) of Essilor (Kiros® and Lumior®) on standard automated perimetry (SAP) indices and Pelli-Robson (PR) contrast sensitivity (CS) testing in healthy individuals. Materials and methods This study is a prospective comparative study of 31 eyes of 31 healthy individuals aged 32.14 (8.13) years (14 males and 17 females). All participants underwent a series of three visual field (VF) examinations (24-2, Swedish Interactive Thresholding Algorithm {SITA} standard) with the Humphrey field analyzer (HFA II 740, Carl Zeiss Meditec, Jena, Germany) and three CS examinations with the PR chart (Precision Vision, Inc., Woodstock, IL). VF and CS examinations were carried out as follows: (a) no filter (NF), (b) with the yellow filter Kiros® (KIROS), and (c) with the yellow-orange filter Lumior® (LUMIOR). The effect of the two yellow filters on global VF indices (glaucoma hemifield test {GHT}, mean deviation {MD}, pattern standard deviation {PSD}, and visual field index {VFI}) and on CS score was evaluated and compared. Results When comparing the three pairs NF-KIROS, NF-LUMIOR, and KIROS-LUMIOR, no difference was presented on the global VF indices. However, a statistically significant difference was detected in the CS scores for all three pairs, favoring KIROS. It is important to note that while this difference was statistically significant, it did not reach clinical significance. Conclusions The use of yellow filters (category 1: VLT of 75% and 65%) does not affect the global VF indices and the CS of healthy individuals but significantly improves their CS score. Further studies are required to explore the clinical significance of these findings.

The Long-Term Effect of Blue-Light Blocking Spectacle Lenses on Adults’ Contrast Perception

Purpose

To evaluate the long-term effect of two different degrees of blue-light blocking (BB) spectacle lenses on adults’ contrast perception under various lighting conditions.

Methods

In total, 144 healthy adults aged 24.70 (±4.32 years) were recruited to this randomized controlled trial. The participants were randomly divided into three groups and used three different spectacle lenses (15% BB: 15% blue-blocking spectacle lenses; 30% BB: 30% blue-blocking spectacle lenses; RC: regular clear lenses serving as control). Contrast sensitivity under four light conditions (scotopic and photopic, both with/without glare) was measured using standard clinical tests at baseline, 1 month, 3 months and 6 months of use. The area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) was also computed as an index for their overall contrast sensitivity across spatial frequencies.

Results

There was no significant difference in AULCSFs among the three types of spectacle lenses under any light condition (all P > 0.81). No statistical difference was found in the AULSCF among the four time points (all P > 0.39), with no interaction between the effects of group and time (all P > 0.42).

Conclusion

Wearing blue-light blocking lens had no clinically significant effect on adults’ long-term contrast perception under scotopic or photopic conditions, or with glare.

Scene perception in age-related macular degeneration: Effect of spatial frequencies and contrast in residual vision

Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is characterized by a central vision loss. Here, we investigated the ability of AMD patients to process the spatial frequency content of scenes in their residual vision, depending of the luminance contrast level. AMD patients and normally-sighted elderly participants (controls) performed a categorization task involving large scenes (outdoors vs. indoors) filtered in low spatial frequencies (LSF), high spatial frequencies (HSF), and non-filtered scenes (NF). Luminance contrast of scenes was equalized between stimuli using a root-mean square (RMS) contrast normalization. In Experiment 1, we applied an RMS contrast of 0.1 (for luminance values between 0 and 1), a value situated between the mean contrast of LSF and HSF scenes in natural conditions. In Experiment 2, we applied an RMS contrast of 0.3, corresponding to the mean contrast of HSF scenes in natural conditions. In Experiment 3, we manipulated four levels of linearly-increasing RMS contrasts (0.05, 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20) for HSF scenes only. Compared to controls, AMD patients gave more non-responses in the categorization of HSF than NF or LSF scenes, irrespective of the contrast level of scenes. Performances improved as contrast increased in HSF scenes. Controls were not differentially affected by the spatial frequency content of scenes. Overall, results suggest that LSF processing is well preserved in AMD patients and allows efficient scene categorization in their parafoveal residual vision. The HSF processing deficit could be partially restored by enhancing luminance contrast.