Correcting visual acuity beyond 20/20 improves contour element detection and integration: A cautionary tale for studies of special populations

Contrary to popular lore, optimal visual acuity is typically better than 20/20. Could correcting acuity beyond 20/20 offer any benefit? An affirmative answer could present new confounds in studies of aging, development, psychiatric illness, neurodegenerative disorders, or any other population where refractive error might be more likely. An affirmative answer would also offer a novel explanation of inter-observer variability in visual performance. To address the question, we had individuals perform two well-studied visual tasks, once with 20/20 vision and once with optical correction, so that observers could see one line better on an eye chart. In the contour integration task, observers sought to identify the screen quadrant location of a sparsely defined (integrated) shape embedded in varying quantities of randomly oriented "noise" elements. In the collinear facilitation task, observers sought to detect a low-contrast element flanked by collinear or orthogonal high-contrast elements. In each case, displays were scaled in size to modulate element visibility and spatial frequency (4-12 cycles/deg). We found that improving acuity beyond 20/20 improved contour integration for the high spatial frequency displays. Although improving visual acuity did not affect collinear facilitation, it did improve detection of the central low-contrast target, especially at high spatial frequencies. These results, which were large in magnitude, suggest that optically correcting beyond 20/20 improves the detection and integration of contour elements, especially those that are smaller and of higher spatial frequency. Refractive blur within the normal range may confound special population studies, explain inter-observer differences, and meaningfully impact performance in low-visibility environments.