ArticleJournal of vision2024
Foveal neural adaptation to optically induced contrast reduction.
Article in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in horizontal and vertical peripheral refraction and their predictive value for myopia control after orthokeratology: a 2-year prospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Two-year results of Lenslet-ARray-Integrated spectacle lenses for myopia control in children.Eye and vision (London, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contrast processing is suggested to interact with eye growth and myopia development. A novel contrast-reducing myopia control lens design decreases image contrast and was shown to slow myopia progression. Limited insights exist regarding neural visual processing following adaptation to image contrast reduction. This study investigated foveal neural contrast sensitivity in 29 young adults following a 30-minute adaptation to scattering using a Bangerter occlusion foil 0.8, +0.5-diopter defocus, and a clear lens control condition. Neural contrast sensitivity at its peak sensitivity of 6 cycles per degree was assessed before and after adaptation to the lens conditions, employing a unique interferometric system. Pre-adaptation measurements were averaged from six replicates and post-adaptation measurements by the first and last three of six replicates. The change in neural contrast sensitivity was largest for scattering across the first and last three post-adaptation measurements (+0.05 ± 0.01 logCS and +0.04 ± 0.01 logCS, respectively) compared with control and defocus (all +0.03 ± 0.01 logCS). For scattering, the observed increase of neural contrast sensitivity within the first three measurements differed significantly from the pre-adaptation baseline (p = 0.04) and was significantly higher compared with the control condition (p = 0.04). The sensitivity increases in the control and defocus conditions were not significant (all p > 0.05). As the adaptation effect diminished, no significant differences were found from baseline or between the conditions in the last three measurements (all p > 0.05). When post-adaptation neural contrast sensitivities were clustered into 25-second sequences, a significant effect was observed between the conditions, with only a significant relevant effect between control and scattering at 25 seconds (p = 0.04) and no further significant effects (all p > 0.05). The alteration in neural contrast sensitivity at peak sensitivity was most pronounced following adaptation to the scattering condition compared with defocus and control, suggesting that induced scattering might be considered for myopia control.
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.