ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
How "Micro" Is Microperimetry? Characterizing the Effect of Fundus Tracking on the Psychometric Function.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.