ArticleJournal of vision2024
Ocular biometric responses to simulated polychromatic defocus.
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.
- Focusing on color: How the eye chooses which wavelength to see best.Science advances · 2026Article
- IMI: The Role of Light in Refractive Development and Myopia: Evidence from Animal and Human Studies.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
Evidence from human studies of ocular accommodation and studies of animals reared in monochromatic conditions suggest that chromatic signals can guide ocular growth. We hypothesized that ocular biometric response in humans can be manipulated by simulating the chromatic contrast differences associated with imposition of optical defocus. The red, green, and blue (RGB) channels of an RGB movie of the natural world were individually incorporated with computational defocus to create two different movie stimuli. The magnitude of defocus incorporated in the red and blue layers was chosen such that, in one case, it simulated +3 D defocus, referred to as color-signed myopic (CSM) defocus, and in another case it simulated -3 D defocus, referred to as color-signed hyperopic (CSH) defocus. Seventeen subjects viewed the reference stimulus (unaltered movie) and at least one of the two color-signed defocus stimuli for ∼1 hour. Axial length (AL) and choroidal thickness (ChT) were measured immediately before and after each session. AL and subfoveal ChT showed no significant change under any of the three conditions. A significant increase in vitreous chamber depth (VCD) was observed following viewing of the CSH stimulus compared with the reference stimulus (0.034 ± 0.03 mm and 0 ± 0.02 mm, respectively; p = 0.018). A significant thinning of the crystalline lens was observed following viewing of the CSH stimulus relative to the CSM stimulus (-0.033 ± 0.03 mm and 0.001 ± 0.03 mm, respectively; p = 0.015). Differences in the effects of CSM and CSH conditions on VCD and lens thickness suggest a directional, modulatory influence of chromatic defocus. On the other hand, ChT responses showed large variability, rendering it an unreliable biomarker for chromatic defocus-driven responses, at least for the conditions of this study.
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.