Accuracy of the Contrast Sensitivity Card Test for Infants: Retest Variability and Prediction of Spatial Resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed the retest variability of a new contrast sensitivity (CS) card procedure and its ability to predict spatial resolution. METHODS: Twenty-four 3-month-olds were tested twice with the CS cards and once with the Teller acuity cards (TAC) within a single session. RESULTS: Coefficient of repeatability (COR) analysis revealed that retest variability of the new cards is superior to that of an earlier prototype at low to mid spatial frequencies. Furthermore, retest variability is comparable to that of infant visual evoked potential studies and the Vistech 6500, a chart commonly used to measure CS in adults. Finally, estimates of visual acuity based on the CS cards were consistent with those provided by the TAC (although CS-based estimates were generally lower overall). CONCLUSIONS: Given its reliability and accuracy, the new CS card procedure has good potential as a clinical tool for assessing spatial vision in infants and toddlers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".