ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2026
Differences in Contrast Sensitivity Measurement With Letters and Gratings.
Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare contrast sensitivity function (CSF) measurements obtained with either Gabor gratings or Sloan letters using the same LCD-based device, to evaluate the reliability of letter-based CSF testing and to establish normative values in a young healthy population.
methodsA new computerised chart for psychophysical measurements in clinical settings was used (Vision Chart, CSO). Three related investigations were conducted. In Study 1 (n = 44), a randomised crossover design measured monocular CSF with gratings and letters at four spatial frequencies (1.5, 3.0, 6.0 and 12.0 cycles/degree) in dominant and non-dominant eyes. In Study 2 (n = 31), letter-based CSF was measured in the dominant eye across three consecutive trials and reassessed in a second session to evaluate intra- and intersession reliability. A two-way repeated-measures ANOVA evaluated stimulus type and spatial frequency effects in Study 1. Reliability in Study 2 was assessed using repeatability and agreement statistics. In Study 3, normative data were derived by pooling findings from Studies 1 and 2 (dominant eyes n = 75; non-dominant eyes n = 44).
resultsIn Study 1, CSF measurements were significantly higher for gratings than for letters at all spatial frequencies tested in both eyes (Holm-corrected p < 0.001). Significant main effects of stimulus type and spatial frequency, as well as a significant interaction, were observed (all p < 0.001). Grating measurements clustered near the upper measurable limit, indicating a ceiling effect. In Study 2, letter-based CSF showed good within-session reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.69-0.88) and moderate-to-good test-retest reliability (ICC 0.56-0.75). Bland-Altman analysis indicated good repeatability. Normative percentiles for letter-based CSF were established.
conclusionsCSF outcomes depend on stimulus type when measured on the same investigated LCD system. Grating stimuli are susceptible to ceiling effects, whereas letters demonstrate good reliability and provide clinically useful normative data, supporting their use in routine functional vision assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42722868What 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.