ArticleBiomedical optics express2026
Effect of spherical aberration on the vergence-accommodation conflict.
Article in Biomedical optics express, 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
We used a binocular adaptive optics visual simulator with vergence control to investigate the impact of spherical aberration (SA) profiles on different degrees of vergence-accommodation conflict (VAC). Stereoacuity and subjective discomfort were measured in ten subjects under three SA conditions (0, -0.24, and -0.43 µm for a 4.5-mm pupil) and three vergence disparities: -1.5 D (parallel lines of sight), 0 D, and +1.5 D (eyes converging at 33 cm), relative to a screen placed at an accommodative distance of 1.5 D. Baseline naked-eye stereoacuity was consistent with published values and showed deterioration for negative conflict (object closer than the vergence point). Adding SA did not substantially improve visual performance, possibly providing a small advantage for negative conflict but producing the opposite effect for positive conflict. No overall improvement was found in comfort level, as the subjective questionnaires revealed opposite tendencies when SA was introduced: discomfort decreased for negative VAC and increased for positive and no conflict. However, the key implication is that an intermediate amount of SA may equalize discomfort across conflict conditions, potentially reducing fatigue during prolonged viewing by avoiding peaks of visual distress. While further research is needed, this finding could have practical relevance in extended reality (ER) systems, as incorporating extended-depth-of-focus (EDoF) optics, either within the device or in the user's eye (e.g., through contact lenses), could provide a simple and cost-effective means to improve user experience.
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.