ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
External Dynamic Visual Noise Matched to the Appearance of Visual Snow Fails to Reproduce Key Perceptual Properties of the Phenomenon.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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
Purpose: Patients with visual snow (VS) perceive a disturbance resembling analog television noise while basic visual measures such as visual acuity remain unaffected. This study investigated whether external dynamic visual noise perceptually matched to VS (simulated VS) reproduces the motion percept of VS during smooth pursuit and whether the subjective awareness of low-contrast simulated VS differed between the VS participants and controls. Methods: We compared 35 VS participants with 30 healthy controls. Participants adjusted the size, density, flicker rate, and luminance polarity of a high-contrast noise stimulus to match their VS. We measured contrast-detection thresholds and the proportion of near-threshold simulated VS stimuli that were reported as perceived. The perceived motion VS was compared with simulated VS during pursuit. Simulated VS either moved with the pursuit target or remained stationary on the screen. Results: Stimuli matching VS consisted of small (2.2 arcmin), sparse (density 0.06), rapidly flickering (15 Hz) elements both lighter and darker than the background. Contrast-detection thresholds did not differ between groups; however, participants with VS reported perceiving low-contrast stimuli less frequently than controls. During pursuit, participants judged the motion of their own VS as more similar to the stationary than to the moving simulation. Conclusions: VS does not necessarily affect basic contrast sensitivity but can influence perceptual awareness of low-contrast stimuli. In addition, the motion percept of VS during smooth pursuit cannot be fully reproduced by perceptually matched external noise, suggesting differences in how extraretinal eye-movement signals interact with the neural activity underlying VS and external dynamic noise.
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.