ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2022
Characterizing Fixational Eye Motion Variance Over Time as Recorded by the Tracking Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscope.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microperimetry Reliability Assessed From Fixation Performance.Translational vision science & technology · 2023Article
- Assessment of binocular fixational eye movements including cyclotorsion with split-field binocular scanning laser ophthalmoscopy.Journal of vision · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to characterize the benign biological variance of fixational microsaccades in a control population using a tracking scanning laser ophthalmoscope (TSLO), accounting for machine accuracy and precision, to determine ideal testing conditions to detect pathologic change in fixational eye motion (FEM).
methodsWe quantified the accuracy and precision of the TSLO, analyzing measurements made by three operators on a model eye. Repeated, 10-second retinal motion traces were then recorded in 17 controls, 3 times a day (morning, afternoon, and evening), on 3 separate days. Microsaccade metrics (MMs) of frequency, average amplitude, peak velocity, and peak acceleration were extracted. Trace to trace, interday, and intraday variability were calculated across all subjects.
resultsIntra-operator and machine variation contributed minimally to total variation, with only 0.007% and 0.14% contribution for frequency and amplitude respectively. Bias was detected, with lower accuracy for higher amplitudes. Participants had an average (SD) microsaccade frequency of 0.84 Hz (0.52 Hz), amplitude of 0.32 degrees (0.11 degrees), peak velocity of 43.68 degrees/s (14.02 degrees/s), and peak acceleration of 13,920.04 degrees/s2 (4,186.84 degrees/s2). The first trace recorded within a session significantly differed from the second two in both microsaccade acceleration and velocity (P < 0.05), and frequency was 0.098 Hz higher in the evenings (P < 0.05). There was no MM difference between days and no evidence of a session-level learning effect (P > 0.05).
conclusionsThe TSLO is both accurate and precise. However, biological inter- and intra-individual variance is present. Trace to trace variability and time of day should be accounted for to optimize detection of pathologic change.
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.