Relationship of Contrast Sensitivity Measured Using Quick Contrast Sensitivity Function With Other Visual Functions in a Low Vision Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Contrast sensitivity (CS) is predictive of various aspects of an individual's functional vision, such as recognizing faces and driving. Currently available CS charts are limited in terms of the spatial frequencies they can test and/or the contrast resolution of the targets they present. The traditional methods for measuring full CS functions (CSFs) are time consuming. The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility of using the quick CSF method in a low vision population and to assess the relationships of CS with other visual functions, which can contribute to the understanding of the functional vision. Methods: Static visual acuity, dynamic visual acuity, CS, global motion perception thresholds, and visual field were measured binocularly in 53 individuals with low vision. The number of participants who could complete each assessment was used to assess feasibility. The relationships between CS and other visual functions were assessed using linear regressions and multiple regressions. Results: The quick CSF was quantifiable in 34 participants of the 42 with quantifiable visual acuities. The area under the log CSF-the summary statistic of CSF-was significantly correlated with static visual acuity and dynamic visual acuity (r = -0.79 and r = -0.63, respectively; P < 0.001). Conclusions: The qCSF is capable of measuring CS in a wide range of visual impairment severities. area under the log CSF only correlates with measures of visual acuity.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".