ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2025
Perimetric Stimuli Undergoing Complete Spatial Summation Optimize the Detection of Retinal Ganglion Cell Density Gradients in Healthy Observers.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the ability of conventional luminance-modulating perimetric stimuli and an area-modulation stimulus (AMS) designed to measure changes in complete spatial summation to identify physiological retinal ganglion cell density (RGCD) gradients in healthy observers. Methods: Contrast thresholds were measured for Goldmann III (GIII; 0.43°, 200 ms) and V (GV; 1.72°, 200 ms) stimuli at 3° and 10° eccentricity in 100 healthy observers (median age, 43 years, range, 18-85 years), with mean spherical equivalent refractive errors ranging from -10.38 to +4.63 DS. Area thresholds were measured at the same locations using a fixed luminance stimulus (ΔL: 4.4 cd/m2, 200 ms). Colocalized RGCD estimates were determined using (i) optical coherence tomography (OCT) RGC layer thickness measures, and (ii) achromatic peripheral grating resolution acuity (PGRA) thresholds. Ratios of the difference in log energy threshold (ΔE) and log RGCD (ΔRGCD) between eccentricities were calculated (ΔE/|ΔRGCD|), with a value of 1 assumed to be the optimal relationship between functional thresholds and RGCD. Results: ΔE/|ΔRGCD|) values (median and interquartile range [IQR]) were largest for AMS (OCT, 0.54 [IQR, 0.37-0.78]; PGRA, 0.71 [IQR, 0.46-1.19]), followed by GIII (OCT, 0.29 [IQR, 0.08-0.44]; PGRA, 0.33 [IQR, 0.07-0.54]; and GV (OCT, 0.16 [IQR, 0.02-0.29]; and PGRA, 0.19 [IQR, 0.02-0.44]). Interstimulus differences between all stimulus pairs were statistically significant (AMS vs GIII, both P < 0.001; AMS vs GV, both P < 0.001; GIII vs GV, both P < 0.05). Conclusions: ΔE/|ΔRGCD| values were closest to 1 for AMS, suggesting this stimulus relates best to underlying physiological variations in RGCD. Translational Relevance: Thresholds measured with area modulation stimuli vary more proportionally with physiological changes in retinal ganglion cell density relative to conventional perimetric stimuli.
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.