IP Library Granted Patent US 12,207,941
Granted Patent B2
US 12,207,941 · App. 16/271,648 · Granted Jan 28, 2025

Psychophysical method to characterize visual symptoms

Inventors: Robert Rosen (Groningen, NL); Carmen Canovas Vidal (Groningen, NL)
Assignee: AMO Groningen B.V.
A61B5/4851A61B3/02A61B5/16A61B5/7264A61B5/7282A61B5/742A61F2/16A61B3/032A61B3/06
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,207,941
App. No.
16/271,648
Granted
Jan 28, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A psychophysical method, system, and apparatuses to characterize visual symptoms. A method may include presenting one or more stimuli to a patient indicating one or more visual symptoms. The patient may produce one or more responses to the stimuli. A determination of a measure of visual symptoms of the patient may be made utilizing a Bayesian method based on the responses.

Claims (16)

1. A method of determining visual symptoms of a patient, comprising:

presenting, on a display screen, a first stimulus to the patient comprising a first image comprising an image of one or more of halo or glare having a first size, type, or intensity;

receiving, on an input device, a first response to the first stimulus by the patient, the first response being a binary response and comprising an indication by the patient of whether the patient's visual symptoms are better or worse than the one or more of halo or glare having the first size, type, or intensity of the first image;

determining, using a processor, a second image based on the first response, the second image comprising an image of one or more of halo or glare having a halo or a glare that is less than the first size, type, or intensity of the one or more of halo or glare of the first image if the binary response indicates that the patient's visual symptoms are better than the one or more of halo or glare of the first image, or having a halo or a glare that is greater than the first size, type, or intensity of the one or more of halo or glare of the first image if the binary response indicates that the patient's visual symptoms are worse than the one or more of halo or glare of the first image;

presenting, on the display screen, a second stimulus to the patient comprising the second image;

receiving, on the input device, a second response to the second stimulus by the patient, the second response being a binary response and comprising an indication by the patient of whether the patient's visual symptoms are better or worse than the one or more of halo or glare of the second image;

updating, using the processor, a prior probability of visual symptoms for the patient based on the first response or the second response;

determining, using the processor, a quantitative measure of visual symptoms of the patient based on the updated prior probability; and

selecting a lens for implantation in the patient based on the determined quantitative measure of visual symptoms.

2. The method of claim 1 , wherein the image of one or more of halo or glare of the first image comprises one or more of halo or glare of an intraocular lens.

3. The method of claim 1 , wherein the prior probability is based on a prior response by the patient to a prior stimulus presented to the patient.

4. The method of claim 1 , wherein the prior probability is based on a plurality of prior responses by the patient to a plurality of prior stimuli presented to the patient.

5. The method of claim 1 , wherein updating the prior probability of visual symptoms for the patient based on the first response or the second response includes utilizing a Bayesian method.

6. The method of claim 1 , wherein determining the quantitative measure of the visual symptoms of the patient includes determining whether the visual symptoms of the patient exceed a threshold.

7. The method of claim 1 , further comprising selecting, using the processor, a multifocal intraocular lens for implantation in the patient based on the quantitative measure of visual symptoms of the patient.

8. The method of claim 1 , wherein the prior probability is an initial probability based on whether the patient belongs to certain demographic groups.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded May 24, 2019
From: ROSEN, ROBERT; CANOVAS VIDAL, CARMEN
To: AMO GRONINGEN B.V.
Reel/Frame 049278/0472 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 62628171 · Feb 8, 2018
Related Publication 20190239803A1 · Aug 8, 2019
References Cited (66)
US 5065767A · Maddess · 1991 [cited by examiner]
US 6460997B1 · Frey et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 6497483B2 · Frey et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 6575572B2 · Lai et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 6609793B2 · Norrby et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 7659971B2 · Warden et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7938538B2 · Lu et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 7944553B1 · Simpson et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 7969585B2 · Neal et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 9700201B2 · Bex et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 10448819B2 · Weeber · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20030033013A1 · Callahan et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20050024647A1 · Montgomery · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060203198A1 · Liang · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060244906A1 · Piers et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060279699A1 · Liang · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20060279700A1 · Liang · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20080033546A1 · Liang · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090000628A1 · Somani et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100097569A1 · Weeber et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110211163A1 · Meuse · 2011 [cited by examiner]
US 20120238904A1 · Manns et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120296422A1 · Weeber · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130314669A1 · Levin et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140176904A1 · Lai · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150379348A1 · Whritenor et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
EP 0538126B1 · 1996 [cited by applicant]
EP 3059575A1 · 2016 [cited by applicant]
GB 2433782A · 2007 [cited by applicant]
GB 2488802A · 2012 [cited by applicant]
WO 0189424A1 · 2001 [cited by applicant]
WO 02074210A2 · 2002 [cited by applicant]
WO 2004079637A1 · 2004 [cited by applicant]
WO 2005079546A2 · 2005 [cited by applicant]
WO 2007142981A2 · 2007 [cited by applicant]
WO 2010028654A1 · 2010 [cited by applicant]
WO 2012166797A1 · 2012 [cited by applicant]
WO 2016032397A1 · 2016 [cited by applicant]
WO 2016087914A1 · 2016 [cited by applicant]
“Lesmes, L.A., Lu, Z.L., Baek, J., Albright, T. Bayesian adaptive estimation of the contrast sensitivity function: The quick CSF method. Mar. 2010. Journal of Vision. vol. 10. Issue 3. pp. 1-10.” (Year: 2010). [cited by examiner]
“Abrahamsson, M., Sjostrand, J. Impairment of contrast sensitivity function (CSF) as a measure of disability glare. Jul. 1986. Investigative Opthamology & Visual Science. vol. 27. Issue 7. pp. 1131-1136.” (Year: 1986). [cited by examiner]
“Buckhurst, P.J., Naroo, S.A., Davies, L.N., Shah, S., Drew, T., Wolffsohn, J.S. Assessment of dysphotopsia in pseudophakic subjects with multifocal intraocular lenses. Jun. 19, 2017. BMJ Open Opthalmology. vol. 1. pp. … [cited by examiner]
“Sen, H.N., Sarikkola, A., Uusitalo, R.J., Laatikainen, L. Quality of vision after AMO Array multifocal intraocular lens implantation. Dec. 2004. Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery. vol. 30, Issue 12. pp. 2483-249… [cited by examiner]
“McAlinden, C. et al. The Development of an Instrument to Measure Quality of Vision: The Quality of Vision (QoV) Questionnaire. Nov. 2010. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. vol. 51, Issue 11. pp. 5537-5545” … [cited by examiner]
Beer J.M., et al., “Lasers' Spectral and Temporal Profile Can Affect Visual Glare Disability,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Dec. 2012, vol. 83 (12), pp. 1135-1144. [cited by applicant]
Javitt J.C., et al., “Validity and Reliability of the Cataract TyPE Spec: an Instrument For Measuring Outcomes of Cataract Extraction,” American Journal of Ophthalmology, Aug. 2003, vol. 136 (2), pp. 285-290. [cited by applicant]
Johnson C.A., “Psychophysical Factors that Have Been Applied to Clinical Perimetry,” Vision Research, Sep. 2013, vol. 90, pp. 25-31. [cited by applicant]
Lesmes L.A., et al., “Bayesian Adaptive Estimation of the Contrast Sensitivity Function: the Quick CSF Method,” Journal of Vision, Mar. 2010, vol. 10 (3) 17, pp. 1-21. [cited by applicant]
Vitale S., et al., “The Refractive Status and Vision Profile: A Questionnaire to Measure Vision-Related Quality of Life in Persons with Refractive Error,” Ophthalmology, Aug. 2000, vol. 107 (8), pp. 1529-1539. [cited by applicant]
Abrahamsson M., et al., “Impairment of Contrast Sensitivity Function (CSF) as a Measure of Disability Glare,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Jul. 1986, vol. 27 (7), pp. 1131-1136. [cited by applicant]
Aslam, T.M., et al., “Development of a Forced Choice Photographic Questionnaire For Photic Phenomena and Its Testing—Repeatability, Reliability and Validity,” Ophthalmologica, Nov.-Dec. 2004, vol. 218 (6), pp. 402-410. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report for Application No. PCT/EP2019/053204, mailed Jun. 24, 2019, 16 pages. [cited by applicant]
Ortiz, C., et al., “Quantification and Monitoring of Visual Disturbances for patients with cataracts using Halo v1.0 software,” Department of Optics, Laboratory of Vision Sciences and Applications, University of Granada… [cited by applicant]
Calatayud A., et al., “Imaging Quality of Multifocal Intraocular Lenses: Automated Assessment Setup,” Ophthalmic and Physiological Optics, Jul. 2013, vol. 33 (4), pp. 420-426. [cited by applicant]
Fernandez E.J., et al., “Adaptive Optics Visual Simulator,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, 2002, vol. 18 (5), pp. S634-S638. [cited by applicant]
Guirao A., et al., “Corneal Wave Aberration from Videokeratography: Accuracy And Limitations of the Procedure,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, 2000, vol. 17 (6), pp. 955-965. [cited by applicant]
Jaeken B., et al., “Peripheral Aberrations in the Human Eye for Different Wavelengths: Off-Axis Chromatic Aberration,” Journal of the Optical Society of America A, Sep. 2011, vol. 28 (9), pp. 1871-1879. [cited by applicant]
Jendritza B.B., et al., “Wavefront-Guided Excimer Laser Vision Correction after Multifocal IOL Implantation,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, Mar. 2008, vol. 24 (3), pp. 274-279. [cited by applicant]
Morlock, R., et al., “Patient-Reported Spectacle Independence Questionnaire (PRSIQ): Development and Validation,”American Journal of Ophthalmology, Jun. 2017, vol. 178, pp. 101-114. [cited by applicant]
Rosen R., et al., “A Bayesian Method Using through Focus Visual Acuity to Predict Rates of Spectacle Wear for Pseudophakic patients,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, Jul. 2018, vol. 59 (9), pp. 1075, ARVO … [cited by applicant]
Weeber H.A., et al., “Influence of Corneal Aberrations on Dysphotopsia with Multifocal IOLs,” ARVO, 2011, Abstract. [cited by applicant]
Weeber H.A., et al., “Influence of Corneal Aberrations on Dysphotopsia with Multifocal IOLs,” RD3115, 2011. [cited by applicant]
Weeber H.A., et al., “Optical and Visual Performance of Patient Populations Implanted with Monofocal and Multifocal IOLs in the Presence of Defocus,” Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 2010, vol. 51, E-Abstra… [cited by applicant]
Weeber H.A., et al., “Population-based Visual Acuity in the Presence of Defocus Well Predicted By Classical Theory,” Journal of Biomedical Optics, 2010, vol. 15 (4), pp. 040509. [cited by applicant]
Weeber H.A., et al., “Theoretical Performance of Intraocular Lenses Correcting Both Spherical and Chromatic Aberration,” Journal of Refractive Surgery, 2012, vol. 28 (1), pp. 48-52. [cited by applicant]
Kontsevich L.L., et al., “Bayesian Adaptive Estimation of Psychometric Slope and Threshold,” Vision Research, Aug. 1999, vol. 39 (16), pp. 2729-2737. [cited by applicant]