ArticleJournal of optometry
Effect of defocus on response time in different age groups: A pilot study.
Article in Journal of optometry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing vision standards in aviation: Embracing evidence-based approaches.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Effect of Contact Lens Design on Objective Visual Acuity-Based Parameters in Pre-Presbyopic Patients in Photopic and Mesopic Lighting Conditions.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Increased visual and cognitive demands emphasize the importance of meeting visual needs at all distances while driving.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the response time associated with visual performance (VP) tasks in the presence of defocus in different presbyopic populations.
methods58 eyes between the ages of 35 and 50 years were studied. Subjects were categorized as pre-presbyopic (35-39 years), early-presbyopic (40-45 years), and mid-presbyopic (46-50 years). VP measurements obtained monocularly included distance and near high contrast (HC) and low contrast (LC) optotype recognition, and contrast threshold at 12cpd for different defocus magnitudes between 0D and 3D in 1D steps. Response time defined as the time taken to recognize and verbalize an optotype, was compared among different presbyopic age groups.
resultsFrom 58 eyes, mean (SD) response time for high contrast distance visual acuity for 0D through 3D ranged between 1.48 (0.23) and 1.87 (0.31)s, whereas low contrast distance visual acuity ranged between 1.5 (0.22) and 2.09 (0.49)s. Mean response time for high contrast near visual acuity for 0D through 3D ranged between 1.56 (0.19) and 2.23 (0.45)s. However, for low contrast near visual acuity it ranged between 1.75 (0.32) and 2.71 (0.94)s. Mean (SD) response time for 12cpd ranged between 2.11 (0.50) and 5.72 (1.09)s. ANOVA revealed a significant difference in response time for distance, near visual acuity and contrast sensitivity as a function of defocus for different age groups.
conclusionsResponse time is increased in the presence of increasing defocus for both distance and near visual acuity and could impact on performance for critical tasks. Full correction of visual acuity at distance and near in presbyopes is warranted always.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.