ArticleJournal of optometry
Influence of contrast polarity on the accommodative response.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Chromostereoscopic Stimulus on Accommodative Response and Subjective Perception.The British and Irish orthoptic journal · 2026Article
- Omnichannel Strategy and Consumer Behavior in Distribution Channels: Trends in the Ophthalmology Sector.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- Optometry: a discipline and profession that feeds from and empowers other specialties.Journal of optometryArticle
- Impact of Color and Polarity on Visual Resolution with Varying Contrast Ratios and Different Text Backgrounds.Journal of ophthalmic & vision researchArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the changes in the accommodative response of the eye while reading a text under different contrast polarity conditions: black letters on white background (BoW condition) and white letters on black background (WoB condition).
methodsEighteen subjects with ages ranging from 21 to 41 years participated in this experimental study. The accommodative response (AR) of the eye while reading a text with BoW or WoB contrast polarity was obtained objectively with an adaptive optics system that corrected all aberrations but subject's own. Two different letter sizes (visual acuity conditions), shown on a microdisplay, were tested. The AR of each eye was measured with its natural pupil diameter at 0-3D of accommodative demand from the far point of the eye, with a step of 0.5D. The slope of the stimulus-response curve was calculated for each subject and condition.
resultsThe averaged maximum pupil size was bigger for reverse (WoB) than for normal (BoW) contrast with statistical significance. The slopes for the ARs of the four conditions were not significantly different from each other.
conclusionsContrast polarity does not seem to influence the accommodative response when reading text from an electronic microdisplay.
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.