Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42635474›Full record

ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026

How "Micro" Is Microperimetry? Characterizing the Effect of Fundus Tracking on the Psychometric Function.

Theresa Lipsky, Clara Ehrenzeller, Georg Ansari, Kristina Pfau, Wolf Harmening, Zhichao Wu, Maximilian Pfau

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Theresa LipskyDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Clara EhrenzellerDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Georg AnsariDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Kristina PfauDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Wolf HarmeningDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Zhichao WuCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.
Maximilian PfauDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to quantify whether fundus tracking in microperimetry improves psychometric parameter estimation (as an in vivo demonstration of improved stimulus-delivery precision), and to derive a psychometrically grounded criterion intensity for suprathreshold (defect-mapping) microperimetry. Methods: Twenty-five healthy volunteers underwent Macular Integrity Assessment (MAIA)2 microperimetry at five loci referenced to Bruch's membrane opening (BMO): three outside and two inside the blind spot. At each location, frequency-of-seeing (FoS) functions were measured with a method of constant stimuli in four blocks (2 had tracking on and 2 had tracking off). FoS data were fit with a cumulative-Gaussian psychometric function estimating sensitivity, spread, guess, and lapse rate. Tracking effects on m, denoting the sensitivity corresponding to the midpoint of the psychometric function, and s, the spread parameter of the underlying Gaussian, were tested per locus using mixed-effects models. The optimal criterion intensity to separate "non-seeing" from "seeing" loci was derived from FoS fits using posterior predictive simulations. Results: Tracking had little effect on sensitivity estimates at loci outside the blind spot, but produced lower sensitivity estimates within the blind spot - indicating fewer spurious detections at non-seeing loci (posterior median difference, 95% credible intervals [CrIs] of -1.78 decibel [dB] 95% CrI = -2.58 to -0.94 at locus 4, and -0.75 dB, 95% CrI = -1.71 to 0.15 at locus 5). Tracking was also associated with a smaller spread (steeper FoS curves) at loci 1 to 3, with posterior median differences of -0.13 dB, 95% CrIs = -0.28 to 0.02, -0.27 dB, 95% CrI = -0.43 to -0.12, and -0.25 dB, 95% CrI = -0.42 to -0.07, respectively. Without tracking, false-positive responses were more frequent when fixation shifts displaced stimuli toward the "seeing" retina. Simulation-based analysis identified 13 dB as the nominally optimal criterion intensity for suprathreshold microperimetry (Youden index = 0.74, 95% CrI = 0.70-0.77); a 10 dB criterion yielded comparable discrimination (Youden index = 0.72, 95% CrI = 0.69-0.75). Conclusions: Even in healthy volunteers with stable fixation, fundus tracking measurably lowered apparent sensitivity at "non-seeing" loci (i.e., reduced spurious responses inside the blind spot) and steepened FoS curves in the "seeing" retina. A criterion intensity in the range of 10 to 16 dB is a defensible choice for separating "seeing" and "non-seeing" retina in suprathreshold (defect-mapping) perimetry paradigms.

Indexed as

Fundus OculiPsychometricsVisual FieldsVisual Field TestsAdultFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedSensory ThresholdsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42635474
PMCPMC13543600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.