Document Detail

Scoring the Farnsworth-Munsell 100-hue for vocational guidance.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  8539021     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
BACKGROUND: We considered whether the color discrimination of mild color defectives scoring < or = 100 is the same as that of normals. METHODS: We analyzed the FM 100-hue results of 126 normals and 94 congenital color defectives retrospectively by considering the Total Error Score (TES) and individual cap errors (error profiles). RESULTS: A TES of 100 passes 95% of normals and 24% of congenital color defectives. The error profiles of some of the mild defectives who pass show abnormal peaks along a red-green axis. An error > or = 5 in these regions is a good indicator of abnormal color discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: Some 30% of mild defectives (TES < or = 100) have limited hue discrimination in the red-green domain, so both the TES and error profiles need to be considered when providing vocational guidance.
L E Mahon; A J Vingrys
Publication Detail:
Type:  Comparative Study; Journal Article    
Journal Detail:
Title:  Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry     Volume:  72     ISSN:  1040-5488     ISO Abbreviation:  Optom Vis Sci     Publication Date:  1995 Aug 
Date Detail:
Created Date:  1996-02-06     Completed Date:  1996-02-06     Revised Date:  2010-03-24    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  8904931     Medline TA:  Optom Vis Sci     Country:  UNITED STATES    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  547-51     Citation Subset:  IM    
Department of Optometry, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC, Australia.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Color Perception / physiology*
Color Vision Defects / physiopathology*
Discrimination (Psychology)
ROC Curve
Reference Values
Vision Tests*
Vocational Guidance / methods*

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Previous Document:  Colors of maximal saturation.
Next Document:  Dapiprazole's effect upon accommodative recovery: is it due entirely to changes in depth of field?