ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluating the reliability of structured light entoptic tasks.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Human perception of polarised light, known as Haidinger's brushes, is linked to macular health but is typically too faint for reliable clinical use. Structured light can enhance these entoptic patterns, but the test-retest reliability of this approach requires validation. Here, we evaluated the reliability of a structured light-based psychophysical task in twenty-five participants (fifty eyes) across two sessions separated by one to fourteen days. Participants viewed structured light stimuli that produced rotating entoptic patterns and identified the rotation direction in a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm while a central obstruction varied in size to determine retinal eccentricity thresholds. Intraclass correlation coefficients demonstrated good to excellent reliability, with values of 0.83 for right eyes and 0.93 for left eyes. Bland-Altman analysis revealed non-significant mean differences of -0.32 degrees and - 0.12 degrees for right and left eyes, respectively, with limits of agreement spanning approximately 6° and 4° around mean thresholds of ~ 6.1° and ~ 6.5°, confirming an absence of systematic bias. These findings indicate that structured light-based psychophysical tasks can yield repeatable measurements of entoptic pattern extent in healthy individuals. Further validation in clinical populations and older age groups is required before the method can be recommended for clinical screening.
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.