Purpose

To determine the frequency and type of color vision defects in a large group of randomly selected older people using two versions of the D-15 and to examine the agreement between the two tests.

Methods

The Adams desaturated D-15 test was administered under Illuminant C (MacBeth lamp, ∼ 100 lux) to a group of 865 individuals aged 58 to 102 years (mean, 75.2 ± 9.1 years). No exclusion criteria, other than the reported presence of a congenital color defect, were applied. Testing was binocular with habitual near correction. If any error was made on this test, the Farnsworth D-15 was administered under identical conditions. On both tests, a color confusion score of 30 or higher was considered failing, and for those failing the test, color defect type (blue-yellow, red-green, or nonselective) was determined using the method of Vingrys and King-Smith (1988).

Results

The majority (60.8%) of the people tested passed both tests. For the sample as a whole, the failure rates of the Adams desaturated D-15 and the Farnsworth D-15 were 36.2% and 20.76%, respectively. As expected, for both tests, failure rate increased markedly with age. Among those who failed both tests, 17.5% of the population, the proportion of specific agreement for red-green and blue-yellow defects was high, 88%. The vast majority of those failing either or both tests had blue-yellow defects, in agreement with previous studies.

Conclusions

Blue-yellow defects were quite common among the aged, becoming increasingly prevalent with increasing age. More people failed the Adams desaturated D-15 than the Farnsworth D-15, but among those who failed, the proportion of blue-yellow defects was similar for the two tests, approximately 75%. The agreement between the two tests in identifying acquired red-green and blue-yellow errors was high.

Purpose

Anisometropia shows an exponential increase in prevalence with increasing age based on cross-sectional studies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate longitudinal changes in anisometropia in all refractive components in older observers and to assess the influence of early cataract development.

Methods

Refractive error was assessed at two time points separated by approximately 12 years in 118 older observers (aged 67.1 and 79.3 years at the two test times). Anisometropia defined as greater than or equal to 1.00 D was calculated for all refractive components. The subjects had intact ocular lenses in both eyes throughout the study. Lens evaluations were performed at the second test using the Lens Opacities Classification System III.

Results

All refractive components approximately doubled in prevalence of anisometropia. Spherical equivalent anisometropia changed from 16.1 to 32.2%. Similar changes were found for spherical error (17 to 38.1%), primary astigmatism (7.6 to 17.8%), and oblique astigmatism (14.4 to 29.7%). Many who did not have anisometropia at the first visit subsequently developed anisometropia (e.g., 26.3% for spherical error and 22.9% for oblique cylinder). The onset of anisometropia occurred at all ages within the studied age range, with no particular preference for any one age. A small number lost anisometropia over time. Individual comparisons of refractive error changes in the two eyes in combination with nuclear lens changes showed that early changes in nuclear sclerosis in the two eyes could account for a large proportion of anisometropia (~40%), but unequal hyperopic shift in the spherical component in the two eyes was the primary cause of the anisometropia.

Conclusions

Anisometropia is at least 10 times more common in the elderly than in children, and anisometropia develops in all refractive components in the oldest observers. Clinicians need to be aware of this common condition that could lead to binocular vision problems and potentially cause falls in the elderly.

This pilot study examined the diagnostic role of multifocal visually evoked potentials (mfVEP) in a small number of patients with diabetes. mfVEP, mfERG, and fundus photographs of both eyes of five patients with diabetes, three with nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) and two without NPDR were examined. Thirteen control subjects were also examined. Eighteen zones were constructed from the 60-element mfVEP stimulus array. mfVEP implicit time (IT) and amplitude (SNR) differences were tested between subject groups. We also examined whether there was a difference in function for patches with and without retinopathy in the NPDR group. Lastly, we compared mfVEP and mfERG results in the same patients. We found significant mfVEP IT differences between controls and all patients with diabetes, controls and diabetics without retinopathy, and between controls and diabetics with retinopathy. The subject groups did not differ significantly in terms of SNR. In the retinopathy group, ITs from zones with retinopathy were significantly longer than ITs from zones without retinopathy (P = 0.016). mfERG IT was more frequently abnormal than mfVEP IT. In addition, mfERG hexagons were twice as likely to be abnormal if the corresponding mfVEP zone was abnormal (P < 0.05). mfVEP implicit times are significantly delayed in patients with diabetes even when there is no retinopathy. These cortical response results are similar, albeit considerably less abnormal, than those previously reported for retinal (mfERG) responses in patients with diabetes. A correlation exists between the location of abnormal mfERG hexagons and abnormal mfVEP zones.

Purpose First, to examine both the reproducibility of the multifocal electroretinogram (mfERG) recorded on different versions of the same instrument, and the repeatability of the mfERG recorded on a single instrument using two different amplifiers. Second, to demonstrate a means by which multicenter and longitudinal studies that use more than one recording instrument can compare and combine data effectively. Methods Three different amplifiers and two mfERG setups, one using VERIS™ 4.3 software (mfERG1) and another using VERIS™ Pro 5.2 software (mfERG2), were evaluated. A total of 73 subjects with normal vision were tested in three groups. Group 1 (n = 42) was recorded using two amplifiers in parallel on mfERG1. Group 2 (n = 52) was recorded on mfERG2 using a single amplifier. Group 3 was a subgroup of 21 subjects from groups 1 and 2 that were tested sequentially on both instruments. A fourth group of 26 subjects with diabetes were also recorded using the two parallel amplifiers on mfERG1. P1 implicit times and N1-P1 amplitudes of the 103 local first order mfERGs were measured, and the differences between the instruments and amplifiers were evaluated as raw scores and Z-scores based on normative data. Measurements of individual responses and measurements averaged over the 103 responses were analyzed. Results Simultaneous recordings made on mfERG1 with the two different amplifiers showed differences in implicit times but similar amplitudes. There was a mean implicit time difference of 2.5 ms between the amplifiers but conversion to Z-scores improved their agreement. Recordings made on different days with the two instruments produced similar but more variable results, with amplitudes differing between them more than implicit times. For local response implicit times, the 95% confidence interval of the difference between instruments was approximately ±1 Z-score (±0.9 ms) in either direction. For local response amplitude, it was approximately ±1.6 Z-scores (±0.3 μV). Conclusions Different amplifiers can yield quite different mfERG P1 implicit times, even with identical band-pass settings. However, the reproducibility of mfERG Z-scores across recording instrumentation is relatively high. Comparison of data across systems and laboratories, necessary for multicenter or longitudinal investigations, is facilitated if raw data are converted into Z-scores based on normative data.