3.9 Article

Reliability of a computer-based system for measuring visual performance skills

出版社

AMER OPTOMETRIC ASSN INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.optm.2011.01.012

关键词

Visual performance; Sports vision; Visual acuity; Dynamic visual acuity; Contrast sensitivity; Accommodative facility; Stereopsis; Perception span; Eye-hand coordination; Visual-motor reaction time

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Athletes have demonstrated better visual abilities than nonathletes. A vision assessment for an athlete should include methods to evaluate the quality of visual performance skills in the most appropriate, accurate, and repeatable manner. This study determines the reliability of the visual performance measures assessed with a computer-based system, known as the Nike Sensory Station. METHODS: One hundred twenty-five subjects (56 men, 69 women), age 18 to 30, completed Phase I of the study. Subjects attended 2 sessions, separated by at least 1 week, in which identical protocols were followed. Subjects completed the following assessments: Visual Clarity, Contrast Sensitivity, Depth Perception, Near Far Quickness, Target Capture, Perception Span, Eye Hand Coordination, Go/No Go, and Reaction Time. An additional 36 subjects (20 men, 16 women), age 22 to 35, completed Phase II of the study involving modifications to the equipment, instructions, and protocols from Phase I. RESULTS: Results show no significant change in performance over time on assessments of Visual Clarity, Contrast Sensitivity, Depth Perception, Target Capture, Perception Span, and Reaction Time. Performance did improve over time for Near-Far Quickness, Eye-Hand Coordination, and Go/No Go. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that many of the Nike Sensory Station assessments show repeatability and no learning effect over time. The measures that did improve across sessions show an expected learning effect caused by the motor response characteristics being measured. Optometry 2011;82:528-542

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据