ArticleDocumenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology2025
Dioptric blur is not fully reflected by VEP-based visual acuity estimates.
Article in Documenta ophthalmologica. Advances in ophthalmology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeObjective estimation of visual acuity (VA) based on visual evoked potentials (VEPs) has become an established technique for cases where psychophysical VA might be unreliable. Refractive errors and improper accommodation could undesirably affect the outcome of VA measurements. Consequently, it is of interest whether a VA reduction due to dioptric blur is reflected by VEP-based estimation of VA.
methodsWe degraded vision in 19 participants to nearly 1.0 logMAR by using either plus lenses or a filter that creates Gaussian blur. For both types of degradation, we compared the outcomes of objective VEP-based VA testing to standard psychophysical VA. For comparison, we also obtained psychophysical grating VA.
resultsWith Gaussian blur, both values, VEP-based VA and psychophysical Landolt-C VA, were nearly identical. With dioptric blur, VEP-based VA was better than psychophysical Landolt-C VA in all participants by an average of 0.37 logMAR with some interindividual variability. Psychophysical grating VA was only relatively mildly affected by blur with no sizable differential effect of blur type.
conclusionVEP-based estimation of VA does not reveal the full amount of VA reduction in the case of dioptric blur. On the one hand, this decreases VEP-based methods' susceptibility to incorrect refraction and mis-accommodation, which are not normally the targeted causes of VA reduction. On the other hand, it reduces the accuracy in quantifying refraction-related impairments of vision with VEPs.
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.