Characterizing the Effects of Enchroma Glasses on Color Discrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Enchroma glasses were designed to improve color vision among color-blind individuals. The putative aid of such optic filters in alleviating color blindness remains to be demonstrated. Our study shows that the beneficial impacts on color discrimination are quite small in comparison to the undesirable effects. PURPOSE: Congenital color blindness is a common genetic anomaly, and there is still no effective aid for affected people. Enchroma glasses are selective filters designed to enhance color discrimination among red-green color-blind individuals. However, there is a lack of data supporting their efficiency. The present study aimed to characterize the effect of Enchroma filters on color discrimination. METHODS: Colorimetric coordinates of figures from a pseudoisochromatic (American Optical Hardy-Rand-Rittler [AO H-R-R]) test were measured. Nine color-blind and five control adult participants performed the AO H-R-R test and a color-naming task using monochromatic stimuli. All data were collected with and without Enchroma filters. RESULTS: Colorimetric coordinates of AO H-R-R figures were shifted out of their respective pseudoisochromatic line. The AO H-R-R error scores of participants with color blindness were not clearly improved by the filters except for the protanopic subgroup. However, the filters promoted a change in the classification of the defect, specifically by increasing protan errors in deutan participants. In the color-naming task, Enchroma filters impaired perception in all participants, specifically for cyan stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: Enchroma filters may affect the nature of a color vision deficiency without necessarily alleviating its severity. Although the performance of protan participants increased in the pseudoisochromatic task with Enchroma filters, this was the only improvement observed across tasks and subgroups. In summary, this study does not support the efficacy of Enchroma filters in correcting color discrimination in color-blind individuals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".