↓ Skip to main content

Marked dissociation of photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity even in normal observers

Overview of attention for article published in Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
59 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Marked dissociation of photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity even in normal observers
Published in
Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, April 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00417-015-3020-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hannah Hertenstein, Michael Bach, Nikolai Johannes Gross, Flemming Beisse

Abstract

Although contrast vision is not routinely tested, it is important: for instance, it predicts traffic incidents better than visual acuity. Mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS) testing approximates low-lighting conditions but entails dark adaptation, which can disrupt clinical routine. In receptor-specific diseases, a dissociation of photopic and mesopic sensitivity would be expected, but can photopic CS act as a surrogate measure for mesopic CS, at least for screening purposes? Photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivities were studied in three groups: 47 normal subjects, 23 subjects with glaucoma, and three subjects with cataract. Twenty-eight of the normal subjects were additionally tested with artificial blur. Photopic contrast sensitivity was assessed with both the Freiburg Acuity and Contrast Test (FrACT) and the Mars Letter Contrast Sensitivity Charts. Mesopic contrast sensitivity, without and with glare, was measured with the Mesoptometer IIb. Coefficients of repeatability and limits of agreement were calculated for all tests. Test-retest limits of agreement were ± 0.17 logCS for Mars, ± 0.21 logCS for FrACT, and ±0.20 logCS / ± 0.14 logCS for Mesoptometer IIb without and with glare, respectively. In terms of inter-test comparison, Mars and FrACT largely agreed, except for ceiling effects in the Mars test. While mesopic and photopic contrast sensitivities correlate significantly (r  = 0.51, p < 0.01), only 27 % of the variance is in common. In particular, subjects with high photopic results may be nearly as likely to have low as well as high mesopic results. The photopic contrast sensitivity tests assessed here cannot serve as surrogate measures for current mesopic contrast sensitivity tests. Low photopic CS predicts low mesopic CS, but with normal photopic CS, mesopic CS can be normal or pathologic.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 2%
Unknown 58 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 19%
Student > Bachelor 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Master 7 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Psychology 6 10%
Engineering 5 8%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 15 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 November 2016.
All research outputs
#17,729,864
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
#2
of 2 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#170,760
of 280,069 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology
#11
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.8. This one scored the same or higher as 0 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,069 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.