Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41112803›Full record

ArticleBiomedical optics express2025

Assessment of the Penn anomaloscope.

L Ling, E Bilgiç, M Mak, H H Smith, N Strukov, J D Mollon, M V Danilova

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biomedical optics express, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

L LingDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom.
E BilgiçLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Department of Psychology, Neuro-Cognitive Psychology, Leopoldstraße 13, 80802 Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-6417-1812
M MakDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom.
H H SmithDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5331-7740
N StrukovTrinity College, Cambridge CB2 1TQ, United Kingdom.
J D MollonDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom.
M V DanilovaDepartment of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge CB2 3EB, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1276-6252

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The main forms of normal and anomalous human color vision can be classified by the Rayleigh match - the ratio of red and green light that matches an amber reference light. We have used a new device - the Penn Anomaloscope - to obtain Rayleigh matches for a group of normal and anomalous participants. The Penn anomaloscope exhibited a high test-retest reliability, not only giving the same diagnosis for normal and anomalous observers on different occasions but also preserving individual differences among normal observers. There was good agreement with the diagnoses given by an established commercial anomaloscope, the Oculus HMC. Using the DeMarco-Smith-Pokorny theoretical cone sensitivities for anomalous and normal observers, and our own measurements of the spectral power distributions of the primaries of the Penn anomaloscope, we modeled the settings that would be predicted for protanomalous, deuteranomalous, and normal participants. There was close agreement between the settings expected from the modeling and the settings independently obtained empirically. The Penn device is compact and portable, and it may be recommended for field studies and educational purposes.

Identifiers

PMID41112803
PMCPMC12532301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.