Visual Acuity and Contrast Sensitivity Development in Children: Sweep Visually Evoked Potential and Psychophysics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the development of visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity in children as measured with objective (sweep visually evoked potential) and subjective, psychophysical techniques, including signal detection theory (SDT), which attempts to control for differences in criterion or behavior between adults and children. Furthermore, this study examines the possibility of applying SDT methods with children. METHODS: Visual acuity and contrast thresholds were measured in 12 children 6 to 7 years old, 10 children 8 to 9 years old, 10 children 10 to 12 years old, and 16 adults. For sweep visually evoked potential measurements, spatial frequency was swept from 1 to 40 cpd to measure VA, and contrast of sine-wave gratings (1 or 8 cpd) was swept from 0.33 to 30% to measure contrast thresholds. For psychophysical measurements, VA and contrast thresholds (1 or 8 cpd) were measured using a temporal two-alternative forced-choice staircase procedure and also with a yes-no SDT procedure. Optotype (logMAR [log of the minimum angle of resolution]) VA was also measured. RESULTS: The results of the various procedures were in agreement showing that there are age-related changes in threshold values and logMAR VA after the age of 6 years and that these visual functions do not become adult-like until the age of 8 to 9 years at the earliest. It was also found that children can participate in SDT procedures and do show differences in criterion compared with adults in psychophysical testing. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm a slightly later development of VA and contrast sensitivity (8 years or older) and indicate the importance of using SDT or forced-choice procedures in any developmental study to attempt to overcome the effect of criterion in children.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".