Simple color-difference formulae and pictorial images have traditionally been used to estimate the visual impact of color errors introduced by image-reproduction processes. But the limited gamut of RGB cameras constrains such analyses, particularly of natural scenes. The purpose of this work was to estimate visual sensitivity to color errors introduced deliberately into pictures synthesized from hyperspectral images of natural scenes without gamut constraints and to compare discrimination thresholds expressed in CIELAB and S-CIELAB color spaces. From each original image, a set of approximate images with variable color errors were generated and displayed on a calibrated RGB color monitor. The threshold for perceptibility of the errors was determined in a paired-comparison experiment. In agreement with previous studies, it was found that discrimination between original and approximate images needed on average a CIELAB color difference ΔE_ab* of about 2.2. Although a large variation of performance across the nine images tested was found when errors were expressed in CIELAB units, little variation was obtained when they were expressed in S-CIELAB units.

Purpose: To compare the static and dynamic accommodative responses measured with the WAM‐5500 and the PowerRef‐II autorefractors. Methods: The dynamic and static monocular accommodative responses were measured with the WAM‐5500 and the PowerRef‐II instruments in 30 pre‐presbyopic patients (23.66 [±3.19] years). The spherical equivalent was measured at 0.00, 2.50, and 5.00 diopters (D) of accommodative stimulation for the static measurements. The subjective refraction was also determined. Dynamic accommodation was measured for abrupt changes of stimulus vergence of 2.00 D. Mean and peak velocities of accommodation and disaccommodation were evaluated. For the PowerRef‐II, dynamic measurements were calculated for sampling frequencies of 5 and 25 Hz. Results: For far distance static results, the differences between subjective and WAM‐5500 measurements were 0.07 (±0.21) D (p = 0.093) and those between subjective and PowerRef‐II measurements were 0.70 (±0.47) D (p = 0.001). The difference in the response measured with both instruments was 0.08 (±0.32) D (p = 0.194) for 2.50 D and −0.32 (±0.48) D (p = 0.001) for 5.00 D of stimulation. For the dynamic mode, the PowerRef‐II at 25 Hz measured faster mean and peak velocities of accommodation and disaccommodation than the WAM‐5500, with statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences of 0.68 (±1.01), 0.67 (±0.98), 1.26 (±1.19), and 1.42 (±1.53) D/s, respectively. With a sampling frequency of 5 Hz for the PowerRef‐II, these differences, which were statistically significant (p < 0.05), were reduced to 0.52 (±0.90), 0.49 (±0.91), 0.83 (±1.07), and 0.83 (±1.31) D/s, respectively. Conclusions: There is good agreement between subjective refraction and WAM‐5500 measurements. In contrast, the PowerRef‐II produced more hyperopic results. There were no differences among instruments at 2.50 D of static stimulation; however, differences were found at 5.00 D. In the dynamic measurements, the PowerRef‐II measured faster velocities, partly attributed to the difference in the sampling frequency.

To investigate a new algorithm to perform an automated non-cycloplegic refraction in adults. Fifty healthy subjects were measured twice (test-retest) with the new automated subjective refraction method and with the conventional clinician subjective refraction procedure. Objective refraction was also measured with the Grand Seiko WAM-5500 autorefractor. The new automated method was inspired on the root finding bisection algorithm and on the Euclidean distances in the power vector domain. The algorithm was implemented in a computer that was synchronized with a customized motorized phoropter. Repeatability was mainly assessed with the within-subject standard deviation (Sw) and accuracy was mainly assessed with the limits of agreement. The within-subject standard deviations of the power vector components (M, J0, J45) obtained for the right eye are (±0.13, ±0.04, ±0.05)D and (±0.17, ±0.03, ±0.07)D, respectively, for the clinical and the automated subjective refraction methods. The limits of agreement (with the clinical method) for the automated and the objective methods are, respectively (±0.56, ±0.18, ±0.31)D and (±0.77, ±0.15, ±0.18)D. Similar results are obtained for the left eye. The proposed automated method is repeatable and more accurate than objective techniques in healthy adults. However, it is not accurate enough to replace the clinical subjective refraction yet and it should be tested in a wider population in terms of age, refraction and different ocular conditions. Despite these important limitations, this method has been shown to be a potentially valuable method to improve the access to primary eye care services in developing countries.

To conduct a clinical validation of a virtual reality-based experimental system that is able to assess the spherical subjective refraction simplifying the methodology of ocular refraction. For the agreement assessment, spherical refraction measurements were obtained from 104 eyes of 52 subjects using three different methods: subjectively with the experimental prototype (Subj.E) and the classical subjective refraction (Subj.C); and objectively with the WAM-5500 autorefractor (WAM). To evaluate precision (intra- and inter-observer variability) of each refractive tool independently, 26 eyes were measured in four occasions. With regard to agreement, the mean difference (±SD) for the spherical equivalent (M) between the new experimental subjective method (Subj.E) and the classical subjective refraction (Subj.C) was -0.034D (±0.454D). The corresponding 95% Limits of Agreement (LoA) were (-0.856D, 0.924D). In relation to precision, intra-observer mean difference for the M component was 0.034±0.195D for the Subj.C, 0.015±0.177D for the WAM and 0.072±0.197D for the Subj.E. Inter-observer variability showed worse precision values, although still clinically valid (below 0.25D) in all instruments. The spherical equivalent obtained with the new experimental system was precise and in good agreement with the classical subjective routine. The algorithm implemented in this new system and its optical configuration has been shown to be a first valid step for spherical error correction in a semiautomated way.