ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Scotopic and Photopic Conventional Visual Acuity and Hyperacuity - Binocular Summation.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine and compare binocular summation (BiS) of conventional visual acuity (cVA) versus hyperacuity (hVA) for photopic and scotopic luminance conditions as a potential biomarker to assess the outcome of interventions on binocular function. Methods: Sixteen young adults (age range [years] = 21-31; 8 women; cVA logMAR < 0.0) participated in this study. The Freiburg Visual Acuity Test (FrACT) was used for VA testing and retested on another day. Both cVA and hVA were determined for dark grey optotypes on light grey background. Participants underwent 40 minutes of dark adaptation prior to scotopic VA testing. Binocular and monocular VA testing was performed. The eye with better VA over the 2 days of testing was selected, the BiS was quantified (binocular VA - better monocular VA) and repeated measures ANOVAs were performed. Results: Binocular VA exceeded monocular VA for all luminance conditions, VA-types, and sessions. We report BiS estimates for photopic and scotopic cVA and hVA, (logMAR BiS ± SEM [decimal BiS]): photopic = -0.01 ± 0.01 [1.03] and -0.06 ± 0.03 [1.15]; and scotopic = -0.05 ± 0.01 [1.12] and -0.11 ± 0.04 [1.28], respectively). Improvement for binocular vision estimates ranged from 0.01 to 0.11 logMAR. A repeated-measures ANOVA (RM ANOVA) did not reveal significant effects of LUMINANCE or VA TYPE on BiS, albeit a trend for strongest BiS for scotopic hVA (15% vs. 28%, photopic versus scotopic, respectively) and weakest for photopic cVA (3% vs. 12%, photopic versus scotopic conditions, respectively). Conclusions: Our results indicate that BiS of VA is relevant to scotopic and photopic hVA and cVA. It appears therefore a plausible candidate biomarker to assess the outcome of retinal therapies restoring rod or cone function on binocular vision. Translational Relevance: Binocular summation of visual acuity might serve as a clinical biomarker to monitor therapy outcome on binocular rod and cone-mediated vision.
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.