ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2021
Meridional Anisotropy of Foveal and Peripheral Resolution Acuity in Adults With Emmetropia, Myopia, and Astigmatism.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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.
- Impact of Best Corrected Final Visual Acuity on the Performance of Intraocular Lens Power Calculations.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Meridional anisotropy in contrast sensitivity and visual evoked potential in adults with high myopic astigmatism.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Meridional Attentional Asymmetries in Astigmatic Eyes.Eye and brain · 2023Article
- Agreement and Repeatability of Central and Peripheral Refraction by One Novel Multispectral-Based Refractor.Frontiers in medicine · 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To quantify astigmatism-related meridional anisotropy in visual resolution at central, nasal, and inferior visual fields. Methods: Three groups of young adults (range, 18-30 years) with corrected-to-normal visual acuity (logMAR 0) were recruited: (1) myopic astigmats (MA): spherical-equivalent error (SE) < -0.75D, with-the-rule astigmatism ≥ 2.00D, n = 19; (2) simple myopes (SM): SE < -0.75D, astigmatism ≤ 0.50D, n = 20; and (3) emmetropes (EM): SE ± 0.50D, astigmatism ≤ 0.50D, n = 14. Resolution acuity was measured for the horizontal and vertical gratings at central and peripheral visual fields (eccentricity: 15°) using a 3-down 1-up staircase paradigm. On- and off-axis refractive errors were corrected by ophthalmic lenses. Results: The MA group exhibited meridional anisotropy preferring vertical gratings. At the central field, the MA group had better resolution acuity for vertical than horizontal gratings, and their resolution acuity for horizontal gratings was significantly worse than the SM and EM groups. At peripheral visual fields, both the SM and EM groups showed better resolution acuity for the radial (i.e., nasal field: horizontal gratings; inferior field: vertical gratings) than tangential orientation. However, the MA group tended to have better resolution acuity for the tangential orientation (i.e., vertical gratings), and their resolution acuity for horizontal gratings was significantly lower than the SM and EM groups at the nasal field. No significant differences were found in the inferior field among the three groups. Conclusions: This study provided evidence of astigmatism-related meridional anisotropy at the fovea and nasal visual fields, underscoring the significant impact of astigmatism on orientation-dependent visual functions.
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.