Trial reportScientific reports2021
Comparison between optical and digital blur using near visual acuity.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2021. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Motion onset VEPs can see through the blur.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Rendering algorithms for aberrated human vision simulation.Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art · 2023Review
- Effect of Dioptric Blur on Pattern-Reversal and Motion-Onset VEPs as Used in Clinical Research.Translational vision science & technology · 2022Article
- Effects of Perceptual Learning on Deprivation Amblyopia in Children with Limbal Dermoid: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a low-cost laboratory setup, we compared visual acuity (VA) for stimuli rendered with Zernike aberrations to an equivalent optical dioptric defocus in emmetropic individuals using a relatively short observing distance of 60 cm. The equivalent spherical refractive error of + 1, + 2 or + 4 D, was applied in the rendering of Landolt Rings. Separately, the refractive error was introduced dioptrically in: (1) unchanged Landolt Rings with an added external lens (+ 1, + 2 or + 4 D) at the subject's eye; (2) same as (1) but with an added accommodation and a vertex distance adjustment. To compare all three approaches, we examined VA in 10 healthy men. Stimuli were observed on a PC CRT screen. For all three levels of refractive error, the pairwise comparison did not show a statistically significant difference between digital blur and accommodation-plus-vertex-distance-adjusted dioptric blur (p < 0.204). The best agreement, determined by Bland-Altman analysis, was measured for + 4 D and was in line with test-retest limits for examination in the clinical population. Our results show that even for a near observing distance, it is possible to use digitally rendered defocus to replicate dioptric blur without a significant change in VA in emmetropic subjects.
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.