ArticleScientific reports2017
Evaluation of the precision of contrast sensitivity function assessment on a tablet device.
Article in Scientific reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of visual contrast sensitivity in biotoxin-exposed individuals using four testing methods.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Contrast Sensitivity After Combined MIGS and Cataract Surgery: A Comparison of Monofocal and Enhanced Monofocal Intraocular Lenses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- A Novel Eye Tracking-Based Gamified Assessment of Contrast Sensitivity Function in Children: Prospective Development and Reliability Study.JMIR serious games · 2025Article
- To what extent do cataracts and cataract surgery change perception?Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Stratification of the Extent of Visual Impairment Identifies Sex-Specific Degenerative Changes in Retinal Structure and Function during Aging.Journal of integrative neuroscience · 2025Article
- Multispecies initial numerical validation of an efficient algorithm prototype for auditory brainstem response hearing threshold estimation.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Toward parametric Bayesian adaptive procedures for multi-frequency categorical loudness scaling.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- Subjective Straylight Index: A Visual Test for Retinal Contrast Assessment as a Function of Veiling Glare.Journal of imaging · 2024Article
- Article
- The spatial contrast sensitivity function and its neurophysiological bases.Vision research · 2023Article
- Comparison of two different contrast sensitivity devices in young adults with normal visual acuity with or without refractive surgery.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Resilience of temporal processing to early and extended visual deprivation.Vision research · 2021Article
- Measuring the Contrast Sensitivity Function in Non-Neovascular and Neovascular Age-Related Macular Degeneration: The Quantitative Contrast Sensitivity Function Test.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Psychophysical Validation of a Novel Active Learning Approach for Measuring the Visual Acuity Behavioral Function.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Do Impairments in Visual Functions Affect Skiing Performance?Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- The Curve Visible on the Campbell-Robson Chart Is Not the Contrast Sensitivity Function.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Validation of Computer-Adaptive Contrast Sensitivity as a Tool to Assess Visual Impairment in Multiple Sclerosis Patients.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Gradiate: A radial sweep approach to measuring detailed contrast sensitivity functions from eye movements.Journal of vision · 2020Article
- Relationship of Contrast Sensitivity Measured Using Quick Contrast Sensitivity Function With Other Visual Functions in a Low Vision Population.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2020Article
- Can Psychophysics Be Fun? Exploring the Feasibility of a Gamified Contrast Sensitivity Function Measure in Amblyopic Children Aged 4-9 Years.Frontiers in medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The contrast sensitivity function (CSF) relates the visibility of a spatial pattern to both its size and contrast, and is therefore a more comprehensive assessment of visual function than acuity, which only determines the smallest resolvable pattern size. Because of the additional dimension of contrast, estimating the CSF can be more time-consuming. Here, we compare two methods for rapid assessment of the CSF that were implemented on a tablet device. For a single-trial assessment, we asked 63 myopes and 38 emmetropes to tap the peak of a "sweep grating" on the tablet's touch screen. For a more precise assessment, subjects performed 50 trials of the quick CSF method in a 10-AFC letter recognition task. Tests were performed with and without optical correction, and in monocular and binocular conditions; one condition was measured twice to assess repeatability. Results show that both methods are highly correlated; using both common and novel measures for test-retest repeatability, however, the quick CSF delivers more precision with testing times of under three minutes. Further analyses show how a population prior can improve convergence rate of the quick CSF, and how the multi-dimensional output of the quick CSF can provide greater precision than scalar outcome measures.
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.