ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2022
The Effect of Bangerter Filters on Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity With External Noise.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2022. 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.
- Amblyopia in 2026: A State-of-the-Art Review of Multidimensional Phenotyping, Response Heterogeneity, and Clinical Considerations.Brain sciences · 2026Review
- Resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging study on the effects of visual status on walking-related brain functions in healthy young adults.Chinese medical journal · 2026Article
- Optically Induced Peripheral Contrast Reduction Restores ON/OFF Pathway Balance in Myopic Eyes.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Bangerter filter's role in regulating ocular axial length: a novel application of an established therapy.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
- Contribution of binocular visual function and its impairment by Bangerter foils to the performance of a precision reaching, grasping and placing task in healthy adults.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- The influence of simulated visual impairment on distance stereopsis.Journal of vision · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is critical to address the relationship between density label of Bangerter filters and expected visual acuity, and how filters modulate contrast sensitivity (CS) at different spatial frequency and external noise levels. In the current study, the monocular visual acuity and CS at ten spatial frequencies and three noise levels were measured in normal subjects wearing no filters, 0.8, 0.4, or 0.2 Bangerter filters. Compared with the baseline condition (no filter worn), Bangerter filters degraded both visual acuity and contrast sensitivity function (CSF) in zero-noise conditions, but the reduction of both visual functions did not correlate with each other at any filter level. In addition, the stronger the filter was, the worse both visual functions became. In contrast, when external noise was present, filters improved the contrast sensitivity at low frequencies but deteriorated it at intermediate and high spatial frequencies. The perceptual template model was used to reveal the corresponding mechanism accounted for filter-induced visual function changes. Although the internal process in visual system should not be affected by the filters, the measurement of parameters was biased. To be specific, (1) the internal additive noise was elevated at all frequencies; (2) the perceptual template was improved at low spatial frequencies but impaired at intermediate spatial frequencies; and (3) the changes in both factors were highly dependent on filter intensity. We conclude that Bangerter filters influence visual acuity and contrast sensitivity differently and that their effect on contrast sensitivity depends on spatial frequency and noise.
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.