Clinical Testing of Contrast Sensitivity in Children: Age-related Norms and Validity
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Hiding Heidi (HH) test and the LEA low-contrast symbols are two commercially available charts of contrast sensitivity (CS) for children. However, there are no published normal data and no indication of how CS measured by these charts relates to other measures of CS. In this study, normal age-related data for both tests are reported, and validity against the Pelli-Robson (PR) chart is measured. METHODS: Eighty-eight normally sighted children were divided into four age groups: 1 to <2.5 years, 2.5 to <4 years, 4 to <6 years, and 6 to <8 years. An adult group with normal vision and with low vision also took part. CS was measured with the HH test, the LEA symbols at 1 m and 28 cm, and the PR chart, as the child's ability permitted. Because there were obvious differences between the contrast levels of the PR chart and the nominal contrast for the children's charts, each contrast level for the children's tests was recalibrated. RESULTS: The HH test and the LEA symbols at 28 cm and 1 m all showed a floor effect; that is, most children of all ages correctly responded to the lowest contrast. The median CS for the LEA symbols at 28 cm and 1 m was 2.22 log CS, which was 1.65 when recalibrated. There was a significant difference of PR CS between the 6- to <8-year-olds and adults (p < 0.001). Of the children's charts, the LEA symbols at 28 cm, once recalibrated for contrast, had the best agreement with the PR chart. CONCLUSION: The LEA and HH charts cannot measure a true contrast threshold for children with normal vision because of the floor effect. The LEA symbols at 28 cm gave the most useful information, once recalibrated for contrast, and may be useful to predict performance of children with low vision, when CS is likely to be compromised.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it