ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2024
Objective Visual Acuity Estimates in Amblyopia Are More Accurate With Optotype-Based P300 Than With VEP Measurements.
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. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of pulsed stimulation on objective and subjective visual acuity measurements in nystagmus.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 2026Article
- A concise overview of using the P300 component of the event-related potential for objective estimation of visual acuity.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Review
- Landolt C acuity follows Bloch's Law for short-duration flashes.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Dioptric blur is not fully reflected by VEP-based visual acuity estimates.Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Traditional visual acuity (VA) measurements depend on subjective responses, which can be unreliable, especially with uncooperative participants. Objective measurements with visual evoked potentials (VEP) address this issue but can overestimate VA in amblyopia. This study aims to establish the P300 component of the event-related potential as an objective VA test for amblyopia and compare its performance to subjective (psychophysical) and VEP-based VA estimates. Methods: Psychophysical, VEP-based, and P300-based VA estimates were obtained for amblyopic and fellow eyes of 18 participants (aged 19-65) in a bicentric study. VEP-based VA was determined from the spatial frequency threshold derived from occipital cortex pattern-pulse responses to check-sizes ranging from 0.048° to 8.95°. P300 responses were collected using visual oddball sequences with circular optotypes. The threshold was estimated from the sigmoid function of parietal P300 amplitude versus optotype gap size. Mean VA values for amblyopic eyes were compared across methods. Results: VEP-based VA of the amblyopic eyes overestimated psychophysical VA by 0.18 ± 0.06 logMAR (P = 0.0016). In contrast, P300-based VA showed no significant difference from psychophysical VA (0.00 ± 0.04 logMAR, P > 0.05). Conclusions: In amblyopia, P300-based optotype VA aligns more closely with psychophysical VA than VEP-based VA, suggesting that P300-based VA is a valid objective alternative for estimating VA in amblyopic eyes. Translational Relevance: This study highlights the potential of P300-based VA testing as a reliable and objective method for assessing VA in amblyopic eyes, offering a promising tool for clinical and research applications where traditional methods fall short.
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.