ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2019
Comparing Spatial Contrast Sensitivity Functions Measured With Digit and Grating Stimuli.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Binocular Contrast Sensitivity Function in Children With Anisometropic Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
- Visual adaptation stronger at the horizontal than the vertical meridian: Linking performance with V1 cortical surface area.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Reduced contrast sensitivity function and outer retina thickness in convalescent Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada disease.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Low-concentration atropine (0.01%) on quantitative contrast sensitivity function in Chinese children with myopia.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Using Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling to Enhance Statistical Inference on Contrast Sensitivity.Translational vision science & technology · 2024Article
- Comparison of the quantitative contrast sensitivity function between early keratoconus and normal eyes.BMC ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Visual Tracking in Amblyopia: A Continuous Psychophysical Approach.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- Decomposing the Response Time in Amblyopia: A Drift Diffusion Model Analysis.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
- The Characteristics of Quick Contrast Sensitivity Function in Keratoconus and Its Correlation with Corneal Topography.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Psychophysical Reverse Correlation Revealed Broader Orientation Tuning and Prolonged Reaction Time in Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2022Article
- Assessing the contrast sensitivity function in myopic parafovea: A quick contrast sensitivity functions study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Lower Internal Additive Noise and Better Perceptual Template Characterize Binocular Contrast Sensitivity Summation.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Impact of Temporal Visual Flicker on Spatial Contrast Sensitivity in Myopia.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- The Temporal Window of Visual Processing in Aging.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe contrast sensitivity function (CSF) is measured traditionally with grating stimuli. Recently, we introduced a new set of digit stimuli to improve the efficiency of CSF tests for people unfamiliar with the Latin alphabet. Given the significant differences between grating and digit stimuli, we conducted this study to evaluate whether the estimated CSFs from the digit test are equivalent to those from the grating test.
methodsThe CSFs of five young (with Psi) and five older (with quick CSF [qCSF]) participants were measured with a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) grating orientation identification task and a 10-digit identification task. The CSFs obtained from the two tasks were compared.
resultsThe estimated CSFs from the two tasks matched well after controlling for stimulus types and performance levels. The root mean square error (RMSE) between the CSFs from the two tasks was 0.093 ± 0.029 (300 trials) and 0.131 ± 0.016 (100 trials) log10 units for young and older observers, respectively. To reach the same standard deviation (0.1 log10 units), the digit CSF test required fewer trials/less time than the classic grating CSF for young (60 vs. 90 trials) and older (15 vs. 21 trials) observers. The complicated behavioral responses of the observer in the 10-AFC digit identification task can be accounted by a model that consists of digit similarity and one single parameter of sensory noise (χ
conclusionsThe estimated CSFs from the digit test highly matched those obtained from the grating test; however, the digit test is much more efficient. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE: The digit CSF test provides a compatible assessment of the CSF as the traditional grating CSF test with more efficiency.
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.