MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Validity of the University of Waterloo Colored Dot Test for Color Vision Testing in Adults and Preschool Children

2002· article· en· W2090871580 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffery K. Hovis, Susan J. Leat, SONJA HEFFERNAN, and KAREN EPP

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColor visionColoredPsychologyColor Vision DefectsConfusionAudiologyTest (biology)Vision testGray (unit)OptometryDevelopmental psychologyArtificial intelligenceOphthalmologyMedicineVisual acuityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Most color vision tests require a high level of cognitive ability and as such are problematic for preschool children and multiply challenged individuals. Our goal was to design a color vision test for these groups and evaluate the clinical utility for preschool children. METHODS: The University of Waterloo Colored Dot Test (UWCDot) for Color Vision Testing requires the subject to distinguish a colored disc from seven gray discs. The target disc was a Munsell color along the deutan, protan, or tritan confusion line with gray. The first phase estimated the sensitivity and specificity of the test for adults. Thirty-one adults with normal color vision and 21 adults with congenital red-green defects participated. In the second phase, the utility of the UWCDot test for screening preschool children was determined. Subjects were 281 males and 269 females aged 2.5 to 5 years with normal vision. Their color vision was also assessed with the Standard Pseudoisochromatic Plates, Part 1 (SPP1). RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of UWCDot for adults approached the values for the desaturated D-15 when subjective responses were scored. Monitoring fixational eye movements produced sensitivity and specificity values that were similar to the anomaloscope. After adjusting the scoring criterion for the preschool children by using the females as a control, 2.9% of the males were identified as red-green deficient, 1.8% were blue-yellow deficient, and 3.2% had an unclassified deficiency. By definition, 1% of the females failed the test. Counting fixational eye movements was not a useful scoring method in the preschool children. Comparisons with SPP1 indicated that the UWCDot uncovers approximately 35% of the individuals with definite red-green color vision defects. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the UWCDot is capable of detecting approximately 35% of the preschool children who have a congenital red-green color vision defect. These individuals are likely to have a more severe deficiency.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207