Display options
Share it on

J Ophthalmol. 2019 Jun 09;2019:6710754. doi: 10.1155/2019/6710754. eCollection 2019.

CAPTCHA as a Visual Performance Metric in Active Macular Disease.

Journal of ophthalmology

Gautam Vangipuram, Aaron Y Lee, Kasra A Rezaei, Lisa C Olmos De Koo, Yewlin E Chee, Jennifer R Chao, Catherine Egan, Cecilia S Lee

Affiliations

  1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98104, USA.
  2. Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK.

PMID: 31281669 PMCID: PMC6590550 DOI: 10.1155/2019/6710754

Abstract

PURPOSE: CAPTCHA (completely automated public turing test to tell computers and humans apart) was designed as a spam prevention test. In patients with visual impairment, completion of this task has been assumed to be difficult; but to date, no study has proven this to be true. As visual function is not well measured by Snellen visual acuity (VA) alone, we theorized that CAPTCHA performance may provide additional information on macular disease-related visual dysfunction.

METHODS: This was designed as a pilot study. Active disease was defined as the presence of either intraretinal fluid (IRF) or subretinal fluid (SRF) on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. CAPTCHA performance was tested using 10 prompts. In addition, near and distance VA, contrast sensitivity, and reading speed were measured. Visual acuity matched pseudophakic patients were used as controls. Primary outcome measures were average edit distance and percent of correct responses.

RESULTS: 70 patients were recruited: 33 with active macular disease and 37 control subjects. Contrast sensitivity was found to be significantly different in both the IRF (

CONCLUSIONS: Distance VA and contrast sensitivity are positively correlated with the presence of IRF and SRF in active macular disease. CAPTCHA performance did not appear to be a significant predictor of either IRF or SRF in our pilot study.

References

  1. Klin Monbl Augenheilkd. 1999 Jun;214(6):401-6 - PubMed
  2. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2000 May;41(6):1309-15 - PubMed
  3. Br J Ophthalmol. 2002 Jan;86(1):12-7 - PubMed
  4. Med Care. 1992 Dec;30(12):1111-26 - PubMed
  5. N Engl J Med. 2006 Oct 5;355(14):1474-85 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2007 Jul;29(5):467-76 - PubMed
  7. Science. 2008 Sep 12;321(5895):1465-8 - PubMed
  8. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008 Nov;146(5):649-55, 655.e1-6 - PubMed
  9. Doc Ophthalmol. 2009 Oct;119(2):133-40 - PubMed
  10. Int J Audiol. 2010 Dec;49(12):904-11 - PubMed
  11. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Apr 19;52(5):2520-4 - PubMed
  12. Eye (Lond). 1990;4 ( Pt 5):712-7 - PubMed
  13. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013 Jul;131(7):870-9 - PubMed
  14. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2013 Jul;39(7):1100-6 - PubMed
  15. Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol. 2014 Spring;3(1):9-16 - PubMed
  16. Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol. 2014 Sep;89(9):347-51 - PubMed
  17. Surv Ophthalmol. 1987 Mar-Apr;31(5):291-306 - PubMed
  18. Optom Vis Sci. 1994 Nov;71(11):685-8 - PubMed
  19. Br J Ophthalmol. 1994 Aug;78(8):608-11 - PubMed
  20. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993 May;111(5):686-91 - PubMed
  21. J Gen Intern Med. 1997 Feb;12(2):125-8 - PubMed
  22. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1997 Aug;38(9):1819-24 - PubMed
  23. Arch Ophthalmol. 1998 Nov;116(11):1496-504 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support