目的确定三种智能手机应用在测量瞳孔间距(IPD)中的准确性。方法本研究将来自三个智能手机应用程序的测量结果与由单个经过训练的检查者使用数字瞳孔计在44名受试者中获得的测量结果进行了比较。比较了每种应用的IPD预测的平均绝对误差(MAE)。此外,每个应用在±0.05mm内测量IPD的频率,±0.10mm,±0.25mm,±0.50mm,±0.75mm,并确定了±1.00mm的数字瞳孔计测量值。结果眼睛测量(DottyDigital,悉尼,新南威尔士州,澳大利亚)和WarbyParker(WarbyParker,纽约,与PDCheckAR(EyeQueCorp.,纽瓦克,加州)应用(1.375毫米)。WarbyParker应用最常在以下范围内获得准确的IPD测量值:±0.05mm,±0.10mm,±0.25mm,±0.50mm,±0.75mm,和±1.00毫米。结论本研究对三种智能手机应用进行了比较,WarbyParker应用程序以最高的精度进行,当传统的IPD测量方法不可用或无法准确进行时,可以作为适当的替代方案。
Purpose To determine the accuracy of three smartphone applications in the measurement of interpupillary distance (IPD). Methods This study compared measurements from three smartphone applications to measurements obtained by a single trained examiner using a digital
pupilometer in 44 subjects. The mean absolute error (MAE) of IPD prediction by each application was compared. Additionally, the frequency at which each application measured IPD within ± 0.05 mm, ± 0.10 mm, ± 0.25 mm, ± 0.50 mm, ± 0.75 mm, and ± 1.00 mm of the digital
pupilometer measurement was determined. Results The Eye Measure (Dotty Digital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia) and Warby Parker (Warby Parker, New York, New York) applications had significantly lower MAE of IPD measurements (0.511364 mm) compared to the PDCheck AR (EyeQue Corp., Newark, California) application (1.375 mm). The Warby Parker application most frequently obtained accurate IPD measurements within the following ranges: ± 0.05 mm, ± 0.10 mm, ± 0.25 mm, ± 0.50 mm, ± 0.75 mm, and ± 1.00 mm. Conclusion Of the three smartphone applications compared in this study, the Warby Parker application performed to the highest degree of accuracy and may serve as an adequate alternative when conventional IPD measurement methods are either unavailable or unable to be performed accurately.