Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Aug 1.
Published in final edited form as: Vision Res. 2014 Jul 8;101:167–176. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2014.06.015

Table 1.

Visual characteristics of the 11 observers with AMD. The PRL is only given for the tested eye (PRL was not determined for observer C).

Observer ID M/F Age Yrs since onset Acuity (logMAR) PRL ecc. (deg) PRL directiona Letter-size threshold (deg) Nominal critical spacing (multiples of letter size) Absolute critical spacing (deg)

OD OS OD OS
A M 72 0.5 0.80 prosthesis 4.98 288° 0.54 1.25 0.68
B F 75 5 0.74 0.92 5.17 94° 0.81 1.35 1.09
C F 72 4 0.62 0.64 - - 0.55 1.39 0.74
D M 84 8 0.56 0.70 6.16 291° 0.73 1.45 1.06
E M 84 3 0.48 0.48 2.45 298° 0.52 1.53 0.79
F F 82 9 0.50 0.52 3.49 288° 0.45 1.64 0.73
G F 73 7 0.66 0.48 2.49 209° 0.67 1.80 1.21
H M 86 12 0.70 0.74 6.69 259° 0.64 2.23 1.43
I F 89 15 1.04 1.06 6.50 202° 0.85 2.28 1.93
J F 74 6 0.54 1.12 2.87b 161° 0.34 3.02 1.04
K F 78 3 0.40 0.32 4.54b 143° 0.39 4.07 1.58
a

The direction of the PRL was specified with respect to the fovea (which in all cases, fell within the central scotoma), counter-clockwise from the horizontal 3 o’clock position (0°).

b

Both observers J and K showed some residual foveal function. Depending on the size of the fixation cross (<1°), the two observers could switch to using their fovea for fixation. They also reported a drastic decrease in vision in dim light, consistent with the shift to a peripheral PRL for visual tasks when the lighting is not sufficient to support foveal vision.