ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024
Visual Field Dependence Persists in Age-Related Central Visual Field Loss.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Links between central visual field loss and movement processing during walking.Gait & posture · 2026Article
- Importance of Screening for Contrast Sensitivity, Falls, and Mobility Limitations in Older Adults With Maculopathy.American journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Subclinical variability in visual function modulates visual dependence - independent of age.Experimental brain research · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To examine whether the age-related increase in visual field dependence persists in older adults with central field loss (CFL). Methods: Twenty individuals with CFL were grouped into participants with age-related binocular CFL (CFL, n = 9), age-related monocular CFL/relative scotomata (mCFL, n = 8), and CFL occurring at a young age (yCFL, n = 3). Seventeen controls were age-matched to the older CFL groups (OA) and three to the yCFL group (yOA). Participants judged the tilt direction of a rod presented at various orientations under conditions with and without a visual reference. Visual field dependence was determined as the difference in judgment bias between trials with and without the visual reference. Visual field dependence was examined between groups and relative to visual acuity and contrast sensitivity. Results: All older groups performed similarly without the visual reference. The CFL group showed greater visual field dependence than the OA group (Mann-Whitney U test; U = 39, P = 0.045). However, there was no group difference when considering all three older groups (Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA; H(2, N = 34) = 4.31, P = 0.116). Poorer contrast sensitivity correlated with greater visual field dependence (P = 0.017; ρ = -0.43). Conclusions: Visual field dependence persists in older adults with CFL and seems exacerbated in those with dense binocular scotomata. This could be attributed to the sensitivity of the spared peripheral retina to orientation and motion cues. The relationship with contrast sensitivity further suggests that a decline in visual function is associated with an increase in visual field dependence beyond the effects of normal aging. These observations can guide tailored care and rehabilitation in older adults with CFL.
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.