ArticleScientific reports2022
Chromatic discrimination in fixed saturation levels from trichromats and subjects with congenital color vision deficiency.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chromatic discrimination in fixed saturation levels from tufted capuchin monkeys with different color vision genotypes.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2024Article
- Color discrimination in fixed saturation level of patients with acute traumatic injury.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Color vision tests use estimative of threshold color discrimination or number of correct responses to evaluate performance in chromatic discrimination tasks. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. In the present investigation, we compared the number of errors during color discrimination task in normal trichromats and participants with color vision deficiency (CVD) using pseudoisochromatic stimuli at fixed saturation levels. We recruited 28 normal trichromats and eight participants with CVD. Cambridge Color Test was used to categorize their color vision phenotype, and those with a phenotype suggestive of color vision deficiency had their L- and M-opsin genes genotyped. Pseudoisochromatic stimuli were shown with target chromaticity in 20 vectors radiating from the background chromaticity and saturation of 0.06, 0.04, 0.03, 0.02, 0.01, and 0.005 u'v' units. Each stimulus condition appeared in four trials. The number of errors for each stimulus condition was considered an indicator of the participant's performance. At high chromatic saturation, there were fewer errors from both phenotypes. The errors of the normal trichromats had no systematic variation for high saturated stimuli, but below 0.02 u'v' units, there was a discrete prevalence of tritan errors. For participants with CVD, the errors happened mainly in red-green chromatic vectors. A three-way ANOVA showed that all factors (color vision phenotype, stimulus saturation, and chromatic vector) had statistically significant effects on the number of errors and that stimulus saturation was the most important main effect. ROC analysis indicated that the performance of the fixed saturation levels to identify CVD was better between 0.02 and 0.06 u'v' units reaching 100%, while saturation of 0.01 and 0.005 u'v' units decreased the accuracy of the screening of the test. We concluded that the color discrimination task using high saturated stimuli separated normal trichromats and participants with red-green color vision deficiencies with high performance, which can be considered a promising method for new color vision tests based in frequency of errors.
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.