ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Differences in perceived chromatic aberration between emmetropic and myopic eyes using adaptive optics.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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.
- S-Cone Retinal Pathway Dysfunction in Myopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Role of light in eye growth and light as a therapy for myopia control.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2026Review
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
Introduction: The study of polychromatic visual perception is challenging due to the number of entangled factors involved in the process, from the cues within visual information from the outside world, to the ocular optics, the retinal properties, and neural adaptation processes in the brain. Methods: In this study, we used an adaptive optics (AO)- based polychromatic visual simulator to investigate the perception of combined optical cues and its dependence on refractive error. Subjective best focus was obtained as the average of 3 repeated measurements for (1) polychromatic and five monochromatic wavelengths in the visible (450-670 nm); (2) three different visual stimuli (conventional binary sunburst, natural outdoor image, natural indoor image); and (3) under natural aberrations (no-AO) and corrected aberrations (AO) conditions. Repeatability was determined as the standard deviation across repetitions. Chromatic difference of focus (CDF) was calculated for Green-Blue (G-Blue, 550-470 nm) and Green-Red (G-Red, 550-700 nm). Longitudinal chromatic aberration (LCA) was estimated using a polynomial regression fit of the best subjective focus curves as a function of the wavelength. Nine young adults (28 ± 6 years) with different refractive profiles (6 myopic and 3 emmetropic) participated in this study. Results: CDF showed different trends in the G-Red and the G-Blue regions, especially for the binary stimulus and after AO-correction of aberrations. However, in the myopic group, CDF was similar in absolute value for G-Blue and G-Red (0.61 ± 0.34 and 0.73 ± 0.58, respectively, Discussion: Overall, the results of this study suggest that the refractive profile may influence how visual information with specific chromatic properties is perceived and processed, potentially shaping visual mechanisms involved in chromatic defocus perception.
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.