ArticleEye (London, England)2019
Spatial contrast sensitivity: effects of reliability, test-retest repeatability and sample size using the Metropsis software.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Signal-to-Noise Efficiency Explains Inter-Observer Variability in Orientation Discrimination.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Effects of COVID-19 on the contrast sensitivity.Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica · 2025Article
- Ranked Importance of Visual Function Outcome Measures in Choroideremia Clinical Trials.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Effects of Perceptual Learning on Deprivation Amblyopia in Children with Limbal Dermoid: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Dichoptic Spatial Contrast Sensitivity Reflects Binocular Balance in Normal and Stereoanomalous Subjects.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2020Article
- Effects of Nicotine Gum Administration on Vision (ENIGMA-Vis): Study Protocol of a Double-Blind, Randomized, and Controlled Clinical Trial.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe goals of the study were to further assess contrast sensitivity to (1) investigate the existence of monocular vs. binocular differences; (2) observe possible differences between sample sizes; (3) investigate the effects of test-retest repeatability.
methodsContrast sensitivity measurements were obtained by presenting eight horizontal sine-wave gratings (ranging from 0.2 to 20 cycles per degree). A three-up-one-down method was used to obtain thresholds with a criterion of 79.4% correct responses for each spatial frequency. The mean of 12 reversals was used for obtaining thresholds, and the two-alternative forced-choice method was used. Data were recorded in 55 naive observers from 20 to 45 years. All participants were free from identifiable ocular disease and had normal visual acuity.
resultsWe observed the absence of differences on CSF for both monocular and binocular observers, as well as the absence of differences between large sample sizes. The latter investigation revealed a high degree of repeatability across time (baseline to 6 months later) with the higher test-retest for low and high spatial frequencies.
conclusionsOur results indicated that spatial contrast sensitivity measurements were little influenced by variables, such as binocular summation, eye dominance, sample size and time using the Metropsis test. The results obtained here have significance for basic and clinical vision science.
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.