ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2017
[Contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in animals].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2017. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Polarization contrasts and their effect on the gaze stabilization of crustaceans.The Journal of experimental biology · 2021Article
- Optimized Signal Flow through Photoreceptors Supports the High-Acuity Vision of Primates.Neuron · 2020Article
- Layer 4 of mouse neocortex differs in cell types and circuit organization between sensory areas.Nature communications · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFundamental spatial vision capabilities of visual systems can be characterized by their contrast sensitivity and visual acuity.
objectiveComparison of contrast sensitivity and visual acuity in humans and other animals. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn analysis of known contrast sensitivity functions and maximum visual acuity across selected taxa was carried out, with consideration of measurement principles, viewing conditions and allometry.
resultsComparing across all analyzed species, contrast sensitivity functions have inverted U‑shape characteristics, with key differences in both position and absolute sensitivity within the spectrum of spatial frequencies. Humans, for example, have a maximum sensitivity at 5 cycles/degree and mice at approximately 0.1 cycles/degree. Body and eye size generally correlate well with maximum visual acuity. Across eye types, lens eyes have the highest optical and visual resolution, all other things being equal. Diurnal species typically outperform crepuscular or nocturnal species. Humans generally excel at both maximum contrast sensitivity as well as visual acuity.
conclusionDespite great differences in optical, anatomical and neurophysiological structures between humans and animals, spatial vision capabilities are generally comparable across taxa. This favors the hypothesis that spatial vision in animals develops primarily towards meeting similar evolutionary needs within the limits of biophysical and optical laws.
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.