Visual assessment in preverbal children mostly relies on the preferential looking paradigm. It requires an experienced observer to interpret the child’s responses to a stimulus. DIVE (Device for an Integral Visual Examination) is a digital tool with an integrated eye tracker (ET) that lifts this requirement and automatizes this process. The aim of our study was to assess the development of two visual functions, visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS), with DIVE, in a large sample of children from 6 months to 14 years (y) of age, and to compare the results of preterm and full-term children. Participants were recruited in clinical settings from five countries. There were 2208 children tested, 609 of them were born preterm. Both VA and CS improved throughout childhood, with the maximum increase during the first 5 years of age. Gestational age, refractive error and age had an impact on VA results, while CS values were only influenced by age. With this study we report normative reference outcomes for VA and CS throughout childhood and validate the DIVE tests as a useful tool to measure basic visual functions in children.

Purpose: To compare different visual acuity (VA) tests (printed and digital, symbols and letters) and to validate a new device for VA testing called DIVE (Devices for an Integral Visual Examination). Methods: VA was tested in a wide spectrum of adult people with printed tests (ETDRS and LEA Symbols) and with two implemented tests in DIVE (HOTV and DIVE Symbols). We measured agreement between the different VA tests using the intraclass correlation coefficient and Bland–Altman method. In addition, we measured the repeatability of all tests. Results: Right eyes from 51 adult participants were included in the study. Correlation between tests was high (ICC from 0.95 to 0.97). Bland–Altman analysis showed good agreement among the different tests, with differences within reasonable clinical limits. However, slightly better VA values were obtained with DIVE HOTV and ETDRS, followed by LEA and DIVE Symbols. ETDRS had the best repeatability. Conclusion: The four evaluated VA tests provide comparable outcomes. In an adult sample, letter optotypes obtained better VA values than symbol optotypes. DIVE VA tests are reliable and well-correlated with printed VA tests.

PURPOSETo compare different visual acuity tests (printed and digital, symbols and letters) and to validate a new device for visual acuitytesting called DIVE. METHODSVisual acuity was tested in a wide spectrum of adult people with printed tests (ETDRS and LEA symbols) and with two tests implemented in DIVE (HOTV and DIVE symbols). Results of visual acuity values were comparedwithintraclass correlation coefficient and with Bland Altman method. RESULTSRight eyes from 50 adult participants were included in the study. Correlation between tests was high (ICC from 0.93 to 0.98). Bland Altman graphics showed good agreement among the different tests, with differences within clinical reasonable limits. The maximum difference between mean values was 0.09LogMar, less than1 line of distance. However, slightly higher values were obtained with HOTV and DIVE symbols, followed by ETDRS and LEA. CONCLUSIONDIVE visual acuity assessments are reliable tests highly correlated with traditional visual acuity tests.