ArticleBehavior research methods2024
Assessing the reliability of web-based measurements of visual function.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Many behavioural phenomena have been replicated using web-based experiments, but evaluation of the agreement between objective measures of web- and lab-based performance is required if scientists and clinicians are to reap the benefits of web-based testing. In this study, we investigated the reliability of a task which assesses early visual cortical function by evaluating the well-known 'oblique effect' (we are better at seeing horizontal and vertical edges than tilted ones) and the levels of agreement between remote, web-based measures and lab-based measures. Sixty-nine young participants (mean age, 21.8 years) performed temporal and spatial versions of a web-based, two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) orientation-identification task. In each case, orientation-identification thresholds (the minimum orientation difference at which a standard orientation could be reliably distinguished from a rotated comparison) were measured for cardinal (horizontal and vertical) and oblique orientations. Reliability was assessed in a subsample of 18 participants who performed the same tasks under laboratory conditions. Robust oblique effects were found, such that thresholds were substantially lower for cardinal orientations compared to obliques, for both web- and lab-based measures of the temporal and spatial 2AFC tasks. Crucially, web- and lab-based orientation-identification thresholds showed high levels of agreement, demonstrating the suitability of web-based testing for assessments of early visual cortical function. Future studies should assess the reliability of similar web-based tasks in clinical populations to evaluate their adoption into clinical settings, either to screen for visual anomalies or to assess changes in performance associated with progression of disease severity.
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.