ArticleScientific reports2020
The effect of refractive error on optokinetic nystagmus.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Agreement and diagnostic accuracy of noncycloplegic retinoscopy, subjective and autorefraction in a young adult Ghanaian population.Ghana medical journal · 2026Article
- A Comparison of Centroid Tracking and Image Phase for Improved Optokinetic Nystagmus Detection.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Eye Tracking in Optometry: A Systematic Review.Journal of eye movement research · 2023Article
- Reflexive Saccades Used for Objective and Automated Measurements of Contrast Sensitivity in Selected Areas of Visual Field.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Contrast Sensitivity Testing in Healthy and Blurred Vision Conditions Using a Novel Optokinetic Nystagmus Live-Detection Method.Translational vision science & technology · 2021Article
- A Dichoptic Optokinetic Nystagmus Paradigm for Interocular Suppression Quantification in Intermittent Exotropia.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
3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subjective refraction is the gold-standard for prescribing refractive correction, but its accuracy is limited by patient's subjective judgment about their clarity of vision. We asked if an involuntary eye movement, optokinetic nystagmus (OKN), could serve as an objective measure of visual-clarity, specifically measuring the dependence of OKN-elicited by drifting spatial-frequency filtered noise-on mean spherical equivalent (MSE) refractive error. In Experiment 1 we quantified OKN score-a measure of consistency with stimulus-direction-for participants with different MSEs. Estimates of MSE based on OKN scores correlate well with estimates of MSE made using autorefraction (r = 0.878, p < 0.001, Bland-Altman analysis: mean difference of 0.00D (95% limits of agreement: - 0.85 to + 0.85D). In Experiment 2, we quantified the relationship between OKN gain (ratio of tracking eye-movement velocity to stimulus velocity) and MSEs (- 2.00, - 1.00, - 0.50, 0.00 and + 1.00D) induced with contact lenses for each participant. The mean difference between measures of MSE based on autorefraction or on OKN gain was + 0.05D (- 0.90 to + 1.01D), and the correlation of these measures across participants was r = 0.976, p < 0.001. Results indicate that MSE attenuates OKN gain so that OKN can be used as an objective proxy for patient response to select the best corrective lens.
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.