ArticleCurrent medical science2023
Forensic Study on Objective Evaluation of Visual Acuity of Ametropia with the Event-related Potential P3.
Article in Current medical science, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A concise overview of using the P300 component of the event-related potential for objective estimation of visual acuity.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn this study, we aimed to assess the characteristics of the P3 component from an event-related potential (ERP) that was induced by visual acuity (VA) processing. Furthermore, we sought to provide electrophysiological evidence for the objective evaluation of VA.
methodsWe recruited 32 participants with myopia-related ametropia. They reported no other ocular diseases and had an uncorrected VA of 4.0 in both eyes. We used the block letter "E" at different visual angles and orientations as the graphic stimuli. The oddball paradigm, consisting of 4 modules, was used for ERP analysis. The standard stimuli of each module were identical, with a visual angle of 1°15'. The visual angles of the target stimuli were 1°15', 55', 24', and 15'. The VA test was performed on each eye separately for all participants, and all characteristics of the P3 component were analyzed.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the P3 peak letencies between the target stimulation angle 1°15' group and the 55' group, or between the target stimulation angle 24' group and the 15' group. There was a significant difference in the P3 peak letencies between the target stimulation angle 1°15' group and the 24' group as well as the 15' group. There was a significant difference in the P3 peak letencies between the target stimulation angle 55' group and the 24' group as well as the 15' group. No significant differences were observed in the P3 amplitude between modules.
conclusionIn the oddball paradigm, P3 elicitation indicated a cognitive response to the target stimuli. These data showed that the characteristics of P3 can be used as an objective evaluation of VA.
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.