ArticleMethodsX2026
Defining a clinical protocol using a computerized central visual processing battery.
Article in MethodsX, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article presents the development and validation of a computerized clinical protocol for assessing Central Visual Processing (CVP). The protocol was designed to overcome limitations in current visual assessment tools by integrating sensory, perceptual, and cognitive visual functions within the dorsal and ventral processing streams. It comprises psychophysically controlled tasks measuring contrast sensitivity, texture perception, coherent motion, form integration, visual attention, reading-related eye movements, quantity estimation, and spatial-numerical mapping. Stimuli were developed using high-precision presentation software, and procedures were adapted to ensure both clinical feasibility and psychophysical validity. Method validation was conducted with 41 healthy adults through test-retest analysis, Cronbach's alpha, and Spearman-Brown split-half reliability. No significant differences were observed between first and second assessments (p > 0.05), and reliability indices showed strong internal consistency across subtests. These findings confirm the reproducibility and methodological robustness of the protocol.•A comprehensive computerized battery assessing central visual functions across dorsal and ventral streams•Psychophysical methods adapted for clinical precision and feasibility•Strong reliability demonstrated through test-retest, internal consistency, and split-half correlations.
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.