ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2026
Description and Evaluation of a Visual Acuity Assessment Paradigm Based on Spatial Frequency-Modulated Form Discrimination.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To describe and evaluate a visual acuity assessment paradigm based on spatial frequency-modulated form discrimination for induced and disease-driven vision loss. Methods: The Patterned-Optotype-in-Noise Task (POINT) consisted of arrow-shaped random noise patterns, each with a 1/f2 amplitude spectrum overlaid on a low-pass filtered background. Stimulus difficulty varied logarithmically across 22 levels by adjusting the background cutoff spatial frequency, relative to foreground. Monocular acuity was measured for POINT stimuli and letter optotypes in 20 adults (21-46 years) with 0-4D of induced blur and in 50 patients (9-77 years) with vision impairment from ocular pathologies/uncorrected refractive error. Results: The POINT demonstrated systematic loss in visual acuity with induced optical blur and eye pathologies, like the standard letter acuity test (P < 0.001). The losses with induced blur in the POINT followed standard Fourier optics predictions of spatial-frequency discrimination between the background and foreground pattern. The test-retest repeatability of POINT was also comparable to letter acuity testing (mean difference ± 95% limits of agreement: +0.04 units ± 0.2 units), but with limited agreement in the acuity measures obtained between the two tests. Conclusions: The POINT is a reliable technique for estimating visual acuity with induced and disease-driven vision loss. However, caution should be exercised when directly comparing these outcomes to standard letter acuity tests owing to fundamental differences in stimulus construction and task requirements. Translational Relevance: The POINT offers a physiologically and theoretically grounded complement to standard assessment of visual acuity in clinical, research and public eye health settings.
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.