MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415016797 · doi:10.1016/j.xops.2025.100962

Shorter Viewing Distance Reduces Contrast in Man-Made Environments

2025· article· en· W4415016797 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

VenueOphthalmology Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsColumbia College
FundersSingHealth FoundationSingapore Eye Research InstituteMedical Research CouncilSingHealthLee FoundationNational Medical Research CouncilSpine Education and Research Institute
KeywordsContrast (vision)Noise (video)Measure (data warehouse)Term (time)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Myopia is associated with increased near-work, time spent indoors and urban environments. This may in part stem from the spatial frequency (SF) composition of the visual environment in such scenarios compared to nature. We investigated the SF content of natural and man-made environments and how the relative contrast experienced may be affected by viewing distance. Study Design Experimental study of environmental contrast. Subjects, Participants, and/or Controls Digital images (n=594) from natural (n=151), mixed-urban (n=172), urban (n=136) and indoor (n=135) environments across Singapore. Methods The FFT was computed and radially averaged and the slope of the amplitude spectra with SF was determined. The total contrast energy within each SF octave ( f –2 f ) was measured to determine exposure deficits between environments, and whether environmental contrast was scale invariant (unaffected by changes in viewing distance). Main Outcome Measures Between environment differences in SF gradient, total contrast and scale invariance. Results As expected, indoor environments displayed the steepest SF gradients at -1.36±0.1, more than urban (-1.22±0.1, p <0.01), mixed-urban (-1.09±0.1, p <0.01) and natural (-1.00±0.1, p <0.01) environments. Specifically, mixed-urban, urban and indoor environments all lacked contrast at middle and higher SFs compared with natural scenes ( p <0.01 each). Contrast energy/octave was approximately equal for natural environments, signifying the relative SF composition was scale invariant. This was not true for man-made environments. Contrast energy/octave decreased as a function of SF in mixed-urban, urban and, most rapidly, in indoor environments ( p <0.001 each), signifying that the total contrast experienced in such environments is directly dependent on viewing distance. Consequently, halving viewing distance when indoors would reduce total perceived middle SF contrast by 35%, despite indoor environments already being deficient compared to nature. Conclusions The SF content of natural environments is consistent regardless of viewing distance, signifying scale invariance. However, this does not apply in man-made environments where contrast at all SFs directly depend on viewing distance. This implies that short viewing distances in man-made environments, may fail to stimulate the eye with sufficient contrast compared to natural environments and may be the reason that such environments induce myopia. Artificial environments cause deprivation because they inherently lack contrast at middle and higher SFs, and these deficits are exacerbated the shorter the viewing distance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.342 · 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