ArticleScientific reports2022
Crowding can impact both low and high contrast visual acuity measurements.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Assessment of Visual Acuity and Stereopsis in Older Adults: A Comparison Between a Screening Application and Clinical Standards-A Feasibility Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The adverse impact of adjacent contours on letter visual acuity is known as crowding but there is conflicting evidence that foveal crowding may be reduced or disappears under low contrast conditions. Potential differences in foveal crowding with contrast on clinical measurements of visual acuity, including test-retest repeatability, were assessed. Visual acuity was measured at the fovea on adult participants with normal vision under three different contrast levels (- 90, - 10 and - 5%). Three rows of 5 letters, each row differing in size by 0.05 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) from largest to smallest were displayed at the center of a monitor. Crowding was varied by varying the separation between horizontally adjacent letters from 100% optotype size to 50%, 20% and 10% optotype size. Inter-row spacing was proportional to optotype size. Observers read the letters on the middle row only. Measurements continued by reducing the size of the letters until 3 or more errors were made and were repeated on two separate days. Visual acuity worsened as both letter contrast decreased and inter-optotype separation reduced (expressed as a percentage of letter width). When expressed in minutes of arc of separation the impact of crowding was the same across all contrasts. Crowding occurs for both high and low contrast charts and should be considered when assessing low contrast visual acuity. Test-retest repeatability showed little or no dependence on either contrast or inter-optotype separation.
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.