ArticleCureus2025
Effects of Target Clarity on Monocular Blur Suppression: A Video Simulation of Simultaneous Vision Multifocal Lens Correction.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the effects of target clarity on monocular blur suppression while using simultaneous vision multifocal lenses through video simulation.
methodsTwenty healthy adults (mean age 20.8±6.1 years) were presented with circular targets at three spatial frequencies (3, 6, and 18 cpd). Gaussian blur filter simulated full refractive correction (0 pixels of blur) and two levels of residual refractive error correction (10 pixels and 20 pixels, respectively). For each target condition, a 50% transparent image with the same spatial frequency was superimposed, with its blur gradually increasing by 0.1 pixels every 0.2 s. The time until participants detected additional blur compared to the initial state was measured and analyzed.
resultsParticipants perceived blur significantly earlier in the two levels of residual refractive error models (10 and 20 pixels of initial blur) compared to the full refractive correction model across all spatial frequencies (p < 0.017). Spatial frequency also influenced blur perception, with detection occurring significantly earlier at higher cpd values across initial blur conditions.
conclusionsResidual refractive error appears to impair the function of monocular blur suppression, aggravating the perception of ghost images. Full refractive correction is therefore essential for effectively suppressing these unwanted visual artifacts.
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.