RESEARCH ARTICLE
Typical and Atypical Errors made by Color Normal and Defective Observers on Printed Pseudoisochromatic Color Vision Tests
Reema Alduhayan1, 2
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2023Volume: 17
E-location ID: e187436412212230
Publisher ID: e187436412212230
DOI: 10.2174/18743641-v16-e221226-2022-40
Article History:
Received Date: 30/7/2022Revision Received Date: 16/11/2022
Acceptance Date: 25/11/2022
Electronic publication date: 01/02/2023
Collection year: 2023
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Background:
Pseudoisochromatic color vision tests are commonly used to screen for color vision deficiency (CVD). Although most color vision normal (CVN) individuals read all plates correctly, a remarkable proportion have errors.
Objective:
This study aimed to determine the typical and atypical error responses to the Ishihara and Waggoner PIP24 (W-PIP24) tests of CVN and CVD individuals.
Methods:
This study recruited 59 CVN and 63 congenital red-green CVD individuals. Participants were tested with the Ishihara and W-PIP24 tests. The participants’ responses were recorded, and typical and atypical errors were determined.
Results:
The rate of atypical errors in the CVN group was 21% in the Ishihara test and 9% in the W-PIP24 test, while those in the CVD group were 100% and 60%, respectively. The CVN and CVD groups tended to have more atypical errors on the Ishihara test than on the W-PIP24 test. Moreover, CVD individuals tended to have more atypical errors in the transformation plates in both tests.
Conclusion:
CVN individuals may misread the plates in the Ishihara and W-PIP24 tests for reasons other than the normality of color vision; therefore, counting only typical errors may eliminate the chance of CVN individuals misreading the number on the plates. The most significant finding of this study was that clinicians should perhaps only consider typical errors as “errors” on both tests.
