ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Repeatability of Foveal Sensitivity Measured Using Adaptive Optics Microperimetry.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the within and between-session repeatability of foveal sensitivity measurements using adaptive optics (AO) microperimetry. Methods: Five normal-sighted participants underwent AO microperimetry testing (550-nm circular stimulus) at the preferred retinal locus across two sessions (2 months ± 2 weeks). Two psychophysical paradigms were used: quick estimation of threshold (QUEST) and method of constant stimuli (MOCS). Each paradigm employed both 1.05-arcmin2 and 30.4-arcmin2 stimulus sizes; stimuli were not stabilized in real time. Trial-by-trial responses were fit with a logistic psychometric function to obtain thresholds at a criterion of 78% seen. Thresholds were converted to sensitivity. Statistical comparisons were performed using paired-sample t-tests. Results: Sensitivities measured from QUEST and MOCS procedures were not significantly different (QUEST: 1.05 arcmin2, P = 0.36 for session 1 and P = 0.41 for session 2; MOCS: 30.4 arcmin2, P = 0.14 for session 1 and P = 0.12 for session 2). Data were thus combined across paradigms for tests of repeatability. Sensitivities for data split into two groups within session 1 and separately within session 2 were not significantly different (QUEST: 1.05 arcmin2, P = 0.34 for session 1 and P = 0.51 for session 2; MOCS: 30.4 arcmin2, P = 0.31 for session 1 and P = 0.27 for session 2). Overall, sensitivities across the two sessions were not significantly different (QUEST: 1.05 arcmin2, P = 0.06; MOCS: 30.4 arcmin2, P = 0.81). The coefficients of repeatability across sessions were 1.5 decibels (dB) and 0.4 dB for 1.05 arcmin2 and 30.4 arcmin2, respectively. Conclusions: Sensitivity measurements from AO microperimetry were repeatable within and across sessions. Translational Relevance: Results of the present study will guide future longitudinal studies of disease progression in detecting sensitivity changes using AO microperimetry.
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.