ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2020
The Clinical Application of Polarization Pattern Perception.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eye Dominance and Testing Order Effects in the Circularly-Oriented Macular Pigment Optical Density Measurements.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2026Article
- Considering the Effect of Neural Adaptation in the Estimation of Haidinger's Brush Perceptual Threshold.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Structured light enhanced entoptic stimuli for vision science applications.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- The Effect of Age-Related Macular Degeneration on Polarization Pattern Perception.Translational vision science & technology · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Determine the repeatability of and optimum stimulus parameters for testing polarization pattern perception in a real-world clinical population, and assess the ability of polarization perception to distinguish normal from abnormal eyes. Methods: Polarization perception was evaluated in staff and patients attending ophthalmology clinics at Warwick Hospital, UK. A series of visual stimuli were presented in pseudorandom order using a liquid-crystal-display-based polarization pattern generator. Stimuli included geometric patterns, gratings, checkerboards, and optotypes. Participants had one or both eyes diagnosed as normal or abnormal following ophthalmic examination, optical coherence tomography, and measures of visual acuity. Measurement scores were assigned to the eye(s) of each participant depending on the total number of stimuli perceived or identified. Results: Stimuli covered the range of spatial scales resolvable within polarization perception by normal and abnormal eyes. Different stimuli had different saliencies. For each stimulus type, polarization perception in the abnormal group was significantly reduced compared with normal eyes ( Conclusions: Clinically useful metrics of polarization perception distinguish between normal and abnormal eyes. Translational Relevance: Perception of spatial patterns formed of non-uniform polarization fields has potential as a quantitative clinical diagnostic measurement.
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.