ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2020
Use of diffusing filters for artificially reducing visual acuity when testing equipment and procedures.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond the snellen chart: exploring the clinical potential of sweep visual evoked potentials for visual acuity measurement.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2026Article
- The blur paradox: Better recognition at a distance.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Dioptric blur is not fully reflected by VEP-based visual acuity estimates.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2025Article
- The FreiBurger: a new optotype for P300-based acuity estimation.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Motion onset VEPs can see through the blur.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Rapid campimetry - a novel robust kinetic approach for visual field screening in glaucoma.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Effect of Dioptric Blur on Pattern-Reversal and Motion-Onset VEPs as Used in Clinical Research.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Comparison of CRT and LCD monitors for objective estimation of visual acuity using the sweep VEP.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2022Article
- VEP-based acuity estimation: unaffected by translucency of contralateral occlusion.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWhen evaluating ophthalmological devices and procedures, for instance those for visual electrophysiology, it is often desirable to perform tests with reduced acuity. Doing this with individuals with actual visual impairments has a number of disadvantages, such as considerable recruitment efforts, especially when a specific acuity range is targeted, and little control about the actual perceptual characteristics of the impairment, which are normally not fully known. Lenses with positive diopters or blurring filters that are placed in front of the eyes of visually normal observers promise a simple solution to the problem. However, defocus results in considerable spurious resolution, and previous studies suggest that the frequently used Bangerter occluders are not optimal for the purpose. The present study therefore reviews a number of other options and tests a selection of filters with respect to their effect on acuity and contrast sensitivity with the aim of identifying filters that primarily degrade acuity while mostly sparing contrast sensitivity.
methodsFirst, we screened several filters for potential usefulness. The Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test was then used to measure visual acuity and contrast sensitivity with a subset of three filters (Luminit LSD 0.5° and 1°, and LEE 420) and, for comparison, with a Bangerter occluder with a nominal acuity grade of 0.1. A qualitative comparison of the filters' effect on the checkerboard-reversal VEP was also performed.
resultsWith both Luminit filters, variability in acuity across participants was relatively small, and at least with the 0.5° version, contrast sensitivity was relativity little affected. The LEE filter and the Bangerter occluder resulted in more variability and, compared to the effect on acuity, a relatively strong reduction in contrast sensitivity. Comparing the Luminit 0.5° and 1° filters, the reduction of acuity was not proportional to physical stimulus degradation. The effect on VEP responses was consistent with the psychophysical data.
conclusionsThe Luminit filters, which have a Gaussian light diffusion profile, appear to be a good choice for artificial reduction of acuity.
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.