WebAULCSF refers to the area that is enclosed by the fitted contrast sensitivity function. The astute reader may realize that if the fit of the contrast sensitivity function is poor, then the … WebJun 1, 2024 · For each AMD severity, the area under log CSF (AULCSF) and contrast sensitivities at individual spatial frequencies were calculated for analysis. Low-luminance deficits (LLDs) for visual acuity (VA) and AULCSF were calculated as the difference between standard and low luminance values. Results
Normal- and Low-Luminance Automated Quantitative Contrast
WebDec 20, 2024 · The study group developed the Quick Contrast Sensitivity Function (qCSF) method, which combines artificial intelligence with active learning to make the measurement process quicker and more accurate. The model draws from 128 possible contrasts and 19 spatial frequencies, amounting to more than 2,400 candidate test items. WebThe magnitude of the AULCSF drop was less than the 0.31 log10 unit reported by Owsley et al. 58 One contributing factor is that our old observers had better visual acuity than those reported by Owsley et al. 58 (MAR 1.0 vs. 1.27). Another factor could be that the stimuli used for CSF testing in the two studies are different. dalglish detective
Frontiers Validation of Computer-Adaptive Contrast Sensitivity …
WebAug 14, 2024 · From the data obtained with the OPTEC 6500 Vision Tester ®, the area under the log contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) was calculated according to the methods of Applegate and associates [ 12 ]. We investigated AULCSF in relation to astigmatic power, axis and monocular or binocular astigmatism. WebThe mean AULCSF for L, M, H1, and H2 was 1.29 ± 0.15, 1.58 ± 0.13, 1.71 ± 0.12, and 1.71 ± 0.13 log units, respectively. Again, the estimated AULCSFs from the two H conditions were essentially identical. The amount of change across these conditions was calculated as the AULCSF difference between two conditions for each participant. WebFeb 21, 2024 · Further analysis showed a significant AULCSF treatment effect in the training group (F 1,30 = 29.99, p < 0.001) but no significant AULCSF changes before and after patching in the control group (F 1,30 < 0.005, p = 0.963). No significant interaction was found for other electrophysiological or behavioral assessments. bipc india