MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606508055 · doi:10.1097/opx.0000000000001065

Validity and Repeatability of a Novel Dynamic Visual Acuity System

2017· article· en· W2606508055 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRepeatabilityVisual acuityAthletesOptometryAudiologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationVisual perceptionPsychologyComputer scienceMedicineOphthalmologyPhysical therapyPerceptionMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In many sports, athletes rely on visual information from the environment to perform. Some literature suggests athletes have superior visual abilities to non-athletes, particularly on tasks representative of the visual demands of their sport, such as dynamic acuity, eye movement accuracy and speed, and peripheral vision. Other literature suggests there is no difference between athletes and non-athletes, at least when standard clinical assessments are employed. A limitation of the literature is that almost none of the research has been conducted with standardized, validated tools. This is partly caused by a lack of readily available tools to measure tasks representative of the visual demands of sport, and available tests have typically not been validated against current clinical standards. The purpose of this study is to examine the validity and repeatability of a novel visual acuity system (moV&; V&MP Vision Suite) recently developed in the Vision & Motor Performance Lab (V&MP). moV& permits the measurement of many visual function parameters including dynamic visual acuity with predictable, random, and jittering target motion. METHODS: Twenty-five participants attended two study visits, separated by a minimum of 2 weeks. At each visit, static and dynamic visual acuity was measured using Snellen, ETDRS, and moV& charts. Static visual acuities were compared to determine the validity of moV&, and both static and dynamic visual acuities were compared between visits to determine the test-retest repeatability. RESULTS: moV& static visual acuities are clinically similar to visual acuities measured with the ETDRS chart (moV&, -0.09 ± 0.13; ETDRS, -0.03 ± 0.11, concordance correlation coefficient 0.726). Additionally, all static, dynamic, and jitter visual acuities demonstrate good test-retest repeatability (Lin's concordance correlation coefficient range 0.451-0.953). CONCLUSIONS: moV& provides good clinical measures of static visual acuity that are comparable to both Snellen and ETDRS measures. Dynamic visual acuity measures demonstrate good test-retest repeatability.

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 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)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.463 · 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