Comparison of three night vision intensification tube technologies on resolution acuity: results from grating and Hoffman ANV-126 tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several methodologies have been used to determine resolution acuity through Night Vision Goggles. The present study compared NVG acuity estimates derived from the Hoffman ANV-126 and a standard psychophysical grating acuity task. For the grating acuity task, observers were required to discriminate between horizontal and vertical gratings according to a method of constant stimuli. Psychometric functions were generated from the performance data, and acuity thresholds were interpolated at a performance level of 70% correct. Acuity estimates were established at three different illumination levels (0.06-5X10<sup>-4</sup> lux) for both procedures. These estimates were then converted to an equivalent Snellen value. The data indicate that grating acuity estimates were consistently better (i.e. lower scores) than acuity measures obtained from the Hoffman ANV-126. Furthermore significant differences in estimated acuity were observed using different tube technologies. In keeping with previous acuity investigations, although the Hoffman ANV-126 provides a rapid operational assessment of tube acuity, it is suggested that more rigorous psychophysical procedures such as the grating task described here be used to assess the real behavioural resolution of tube technologies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".