Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To compare the critical fusion frequency (CFF) thresholds between the newly modified device and the current device.</p> Methods <p>Sixty eyes from 60 normal participants and 60 eyes from 60 patients with ophthalmic diseases were included in this study. All participants underwent the CFF test with the new and current devices. The relationships between age and the CFF values were analyzed in normal participants. The CFF values measured with the new and current devices were compared for all participants.</p> Results <p>Significant correlations were found between the CFF values measured with the new and current devices in normal participants (<i>r</i> = 0.92, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and disease patients (<i>r</i> = 0.99, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Although the mean CFF value of the new device was approximately 1&#xa0;dB lower than that of the current device (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) in normal eyes, no difference was found in eyes with ocular diseases (<i>p</i> = 0.261).</p> Conclusion <p>The CFF values measured with the new device are equivalent to those of the current device. Our results show that the new device is a competent successor to the current device.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluation of the modified critical fusion frequency test apparatus

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月18日

查看全文
  • Akihiko Sugino,
  • Hiroki Nomoto,
  • Chota Matsumoto,
  • Tomoyasu Kayazawa,
  • Fumi Tanabe,
  • Shunji Kusaka

摘要

Objectives

To compare the critical fusion frequency (CFF) thresholds between the newly modified device and the current device.

Methods

Sixty eyes from 60 normal participants and 60 eyes from 60 patients with ophthalmic diseases were included in this study. All participants underwent the CFF test with the new and current devices. The relationships between age and the CFF values were analyzed in normal participants. The CFF values measured with the new and current devices were compared for all participants.

Results

Significant correlations were found between the CFF values measured with the new and current devices in normal participants (r = 0.92, p < 0.001) and disease patients (r = 0.99, p < 0.001). Although the mean CFF value of the new device was approximately 1 dB lower than that of the current device (p < 0.01) in normal eyes, no difference was found in eyes with ocular diseases (p = 0.261).

Conclusion

The CFF values measured with the new device are equivalent to those of the current device. Our results show that the new device is a competent successor to the current device.