ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2020
Mapping the Contrast Sensitivity of the Visual Field With Bayesian Adaptive qVFM.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2020. 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.
- Article
- Consistency of preferred retinal locus across tasks and participants trained with a simulated scotoma.Vision research · 2023Article
- Assessing the contrast sensitivity function in myopic parafovea: A quick contrast sensitivity functions study.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Article
- Psychophysical Validation of a Novel Active Learning Approach for Measuring the Visual Acuity Behavioral Function.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- Do Impairments in Visual Functions Affect Skiing Performance?Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Evaluating the Performance of qVFM in Mapping the Visual Field of Simulated Observers With Eye Diseases.Frontiers in neuroscience · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Current clinical evaluation, which focuses on central vision, could be improved through characterization of residual vision with peripheral testing of visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, color vision, crowding, and reading speed. Assessing visual functions in addition to light sensitivity, a comprehensive visual field map (VFM) would be valuable for detecting and managing eye diseases. In a previous study, we developed a Bayesian adaptive qVFM method that combines a global module for preliminary assessment of the VFM's shape and a local module for assessment at individual retinal locations. The method was validated in measuring the light sensitivity VFM. In this study, we extended the qVFM method to measure contrast sensitivity across the visual field. In both simulations and psychophysics, we sampled 64 visual field locations (48 x 48 deg) and compared the qVFM method with a procedure that tested each retinal location independently (qFC; Lesmes et al., 2015). In each trial, subjects were required to identify a single optotype (size: 2.5 x 2.5 deg), one of 10 filtered Sloan letters. To compare the accuracy and precision of the two methods, three simulated eyes were tested in 1,280 trials with each method. In addition, data were collected from 10 eyes (5 OS, 5 OD) of five normal observers. For simulations, the average RMSE of the estimated contrast sensitivity with the qVFM and qFC methods were 0.057 and 0.100 after 320 trials, and 0.037 and 0.041 after 1,280 trials [all in log10 units, represent as
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.