Effect of Illumination on Colour Vision Testing with Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test: Customized Colour Vision Booth versus Room Illumination.
10.3341/kjo.2010.24.3.159
- Author:
Kowser ZAHIRUDDIN
1
;
Shaj BANU
;
Ramya DHARMARAJAN
;
Vaitheeswaran KULOTHUNGAN
;
Deepa VIJAYAN
;
Rajiv RAMAN
;
Tarun SHARMA
Author Information
1. Elite School of Optometry, Sankara Nethralaya, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Comparative Study ; Evaluation Studies
- Keywords:
Colour vision defects;
Colour vision test;
Lighting
- MeSH:
Adolescent;
Adult;
Color Perception Tests/*instrumentation/*methods/standards;
Color Vision Defects/congenital/*diagnosis/etiology;
Diabetes Complications;
Equipment Design;
Humans;
*Lighting;
Middle Aged;
Young Adult
- From:Korean Journal of Ophthalmology
2010;24(3):159-162
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To evaluate a customized, portable Farnsworth-Munsell 100 (FM 100) hue viewing booth for compliance with colour vision testing standards and to compare it with room illumination in subjects with normal colour vision (trichromats), subjects with acquired colour vision defects (secondary to diabetes mellitus), and subjects with congenital colour vision defects (dichromats). METHODS: Discrete wavelengths of the tube in the customized booth were measured using a spectrometer using the normal incident method and were compared with the spectral distribution of sunlight. Forty-eight subjects were recruited for the study and were divided into 3 groups: Group 1, Normal Trichromats (30 eyes); Group 2, Congenital Colour Vision Defects (16 eyes); and Group 3, Diabetes Mellitus (20 eyes). The FM 100 hue test performance was compared using two illumination conditions, booth illumination and room illumination. RESULTS: Total error scores of the classical method in Group 2 as mean+/-SD for room and booth illumination was 243.05+/-85.96 and 149.85+/-54.50 respectively (p=0.0001). Group 2 demonstrated lesser correlation (r=0.50, 0.55), lesser reliability (Cronbach's alpha, 0.625, 0.662) and greater variability (Bland & Altman value, 10.5) in total error scores for the classical method and the moment of inertia method between the two illumination conditions when compared to the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The customized booth demonstrated illumination meeting CIE standards. The total error scores were overestimated by the classical and moment of inertia methods in all groups for room illumination compared with booth illumination, however overestimation was more significant in the diabetes group.
