ArticleJournal of vision2026
Optical and neural contributions to contrast sensitivity: A factor analysis of individual differences with and without adaptive optics.
Article in Journal of vision, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Elliott et al. (2009) measured contrast sensitivity functions (CSFs) using both normal viewing and closed-loop adaptive optics (AO) to correct high-order optical aberrations. We reanalyzed their data to further characterize optical and neural contributions to CSFs. Data were log CSFs for 16 individuals measured monocularly with and without AO correction for six vertical sinewave gratings between 0.55 and 18 cycles per degree (cpd). A factor analysis (direct oblimin rotation) revealed three significant factors. The first loaded onto AO-corrected data for high spatial frequencies (1.25 to 18 cpd) but only onto 1.25 cpd for normal viewing. The second loaded onto low frequencies (0.55 to 2.25 cpd) regardless of viewing condition. The third loaded onto frequencies above 2.25 cpd, but only in normal viewing, and disappeared under AO correction. The first two factors were retino-neural, broadly sensitive to high and low spatial frequencies. The third factor was optical quality (variability in higher-order aberrations), indicating that previously identified factors above 2.25 cpd in factor-analytic studies are not retino-neural. Results may challenge the hypothesis of multiple narrowly tuned spatial frequency channels determining CSFs in favor of two broadly tuned neural mechanisms (consistent with magnocellular and parvocellular pathways) plus optical factors that limit high spatial frequencies. Notably, (typically older) observers with poorer optical quality exhibited reduced neural sensitivity, even after optical correction, suggesting chronic optical degradation may permanently impact neural processing.
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.