4.6 Article

Optical Characterization of Bangerter Foils

Journal

INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE
Volume 51, Issue 1, Pages 609-613

Publisher

ASSOC RESEARCH VISION OPHTHALMOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1167/iovs.09-3726

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia, Spain [FIS2004-2153, FIS2007-64765]
  2. Fundacion Seneca, Murcia [04524/GERM/06]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE. Optical penalization is emerging as an alternative to patching for the treatment of amblyopia. Bangerter foils offer a form of optical penalization that is distinctly different from standard techniques making use of atropine or spectacle lens manipulation, or both, to produce defocus. The authors examined the optical properties of Bangerter foils and compared them with the effect of defocus. METHODS. Bangerter foils were evaluated on an optical bench to calculate point spread and modulation transfer functions. Retinal images through the foils were also simulated and qualitatively compared with those with defocus and Gaussian blur. Subjective visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were compared in two subjects wearing spectacles with foils and with simple defocus. RESULTS. The optical characteristics of the Bangerter foils do not correspond well with their labeled density designation. Bangerter foils and defocus affect the modulation transfer function similarly, with more attenuation of mid-range spatial frequencies than low spatial frequencies. However, Bangerter foils do not exhibit spurious resolution and phase shifts, as does defocus. CONCLUSIONS. The blur resulting from Bangerter filters is qualitatively different from defocus. Whether this difference is of any consequence when these two methods of optical penalization are used for amblyopia treatment remains to be investigated. (Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010;51:609-613) DOI:10.1167/iovs.09-3726

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available