A comparison of behavioural procedures for measuring Vernier acuity and grating acuity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I evaluated a novel 4/4 vision testing procedure recently implemented by our laboratory in a larger study to estimate the maturation ages of three visual functions. This rigorous procedure requires participants to locate a stimulus on four consecutive presentations before progressing to more difficult stimuli. I determined the time-efficiency of the procedure and whether children are affected differently than adults by the procedure, which would suggest that maturation age estimates from the larger study are inaccurate. Fifty-five adults and 52 children were tested on grating acuity and vernier acuity using the Teller acuity cards (TAC) and vernier acuity cards, respectively. I hypothesized that the 4/4 procedure would agree with the widely-used staircase and TAC procedures for both visual functions and across age groups, and that the 4/4 procedure would be more time-efficient than the staircase procedure. The 4/4 procedure showed strong to acceptable agreement with the staircase and TAC procedures for grating acuity, while levels of agreement for vernier acuity were poorer due to the misalignment step sizes. For both visual functions, levels of agreement were stable across age indicating that the measurement of children’s acuity was not affected differently than the measurement of adults’ acuity when tested with the 4/4 procedure. Although for both visual functions, the 4/4 procedure had longer completion times than the TAC procedure, it was more time-efficient than the staircase procedure. Thus, this procedure is sufficiently accurate and practical to measure visual maturation.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".