ライフサイエンスコーパス: contrast sensitivity

1 ce and near acuity, reading speed and index, contrast sensitivity).

2 sociated with postoperative visual acuity or contrast sensitivity.

3 pectacle-corrected visual acuity (BSCVA) and contrast sensitivity.

4 = .01) and photopic (beta = -0.23, P = .04) contrast sensitivity.

5 rgery with no influence on the postoperative contrast sensitivity.

6 ia improved monocular and binocular BCVA and contrast sensitivity.

7 = .04) and photopic (beta = -0.003, P = .02) contrast sensitivity.

8 termediate, and near distances with improved contrast sensitivity.

9 ection discrimination thresholds, as well as contrast sensitivity.

10 or ON alpha RGCs have behavioral deficits in contrast sensitivity.

11 ctive error, uncorrected distance acuity and contrast sensitivity.

12 r hypertension) does not increase perimetric contrast sensitivity.

13 underwent the Anwar technique showed better contrast sensitivity.

14 ensitivity, or sweep visual evoked potential contrast sensitivity.

15 nsitivity, and sweep visual evoked potential contrast sensitivity.

16 the main source of individual variations in contrast sensitivity.

17 general cognitive status, visual acuity, and contrast sensitivity.

18 hanges in monocular and binocular functional contrast sensitivity.

19 ability to detect contrast is referred to as contrast sensitivity.

20 l function, affecting both visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.

21 etts, and deficits in adult color vision and contrast sensitivity.

22 s of retinal ganglion cells showed decreased contrast sensitivity.

23 various distances, with good stereopsis and contrast sensitivity.

24 strongest correlation with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.

25 the responses revealed reduced frequency and contrast sensitivity.

26 nce was observed to affect visual acuity and contrast sensitivity.

27 rpened orientation tuning, and led to higher contrast sensitivity.

28 cm) and near (33 cm) distances and binocular contrast sensitivity.

29 Aging significantly degrades contrast sensitivity.

30 nal measures showed a fair relationship with contrast sensitivity.

31 pectively; P = 0.01) and >20/32 for <25% low-contrast sensitivity (10.3%; 95% CI, 4.3-16.4 vs 4%, res

32 nd frequency of achieving >20/40 for <5% low-contrast sensitivity (37.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI

33 ance, (2) binocular disparity, (3) luminance contrast sensitivity, (4) peak spatial frequency, and (5

34 ions the asymptotic maximum was <50%, and so contrast sensitivity (50% response rate) is undefined.

35 Despite a subtle change in contrast sensitivity, a robust increase in processing sp

36 For contrast sensitivity, a significant advantage for aspher

37 ores the visual function, accommodation, and contrast sensitivity after cataract surgery with no infl

38 Impaired contrast sensitivity along chromatic axes was also obser

39 Contrast sensitivity also significantly improved postope

40 ese patients show surprising improvements in contrast sensitivity, an assay of basic spatial vision.

41 he inner retina, decreased visual acuity and contrast sensitivity and a selective reduction of the el

42 ntial to impact image-forming functions like contrast sensitivity and color opponency.

43 Contrast sensitivity and color vision loss were quantifi

44 Luminance contrast sensitivity and colour vision are considered to

45 processing from retinal deficits, including contrast sensitivity and colour vision deficits to highe

46 Contrast sensitivity and colour vision impairments were

47 In the present study we measured contrast sensitivity and colour vision in a group of pat

48 These include changes in colour vision and contrast sensitivity and difficulties with complex visua

49 subjects, the strongest correlation was for contrast sensitivity and elevation (slope) in the region

50 ion processing in sensory systems, enhancing contrast sensitivity and enabling edge discrimination.

51 retinal dysfunction, as evidenced by reduced contrast sensitivity and FDP performance, accompanied by

52 Contrast sensitivity and glare is an important subjectiv

53 Mesopic vision evaluations were performed by contrast sensitivity and glare tests for each group.

54 The contrast sensitivity and glare tests were significantly

55 compare visual evoked potential measures of contrast sensitivity and grating acuity in children with

56 we found no relationship between perimetric contrast sensitivity and IOP reduction in ocular hyperte

57 of the combined visual abilities of acuity, contrast sensitivity and presentation time on plate disc

58 er (HIV-NRD), a visual impairment of reduced contrast sensitivity and reading ability, is associated

59 ment, were used to assess light sensitivity, contrast sensitivity and spatial acuity of optogenetic r

60 ask performance was strongly correlated with contrast sensitivity and suggests that performance-based

61 s prefer vertically oriented gratings; their contrast sensitivity and TF tuning are similar to those

62 The correlation between contrast sensitivity and the highest and lowest corneal

63 The contrast sensitivity and visual acuity (logMAR) in the a

64 Race/ethnicity seems to be associated with contrast sensitivity and visual acuity outcomes in affec

65 , reading acuity, maximum reading speed, and contrast sensitivity and with microperimetry evaluating

66 full range of adequate vision, satisfactory contrast sensitivity, and a lack of significant adverse

67 The distance and near visual acuities, contrast sensitivity, and accommodation were measured ov

68 ence functional deficits in dark adaptation, contrast sensitivity, and color perception before any mi

69 ence functional deficits in dark adaptation, contrast sensitivity, and color perception before microv

70 Here we demonstrate that the firing rate, contrast sensitivity, and dynamic range of V2 neurons we

71 g speed [International Reading Speed Texts], contrast sensitivity, and forward light scatter).

72 lution [logMAR] visual acuity, stereoacuity, contrast sensitivity, and forward light scatter).

73 tability, stability, refractive error, CDVA, contrast sensitivity, and higher-order aberrations at 12

74 or that has a vision component, notably poor contrast sensitivity, and some loss of visual fields.

75 topic and mesopic conditions; defocus curve, contrast sensitivity, and stereopsis; and Visual Functio

76 acuity (LCA) (2.5% and 1.25%), Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity, and sweep visual evoked potential

77 R-R and Ishihara testing are correlated with contrast sensitivity, and these tests may be useful clin

78 ment of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity, and videonystagmography were perfo

79 function testing including distance acuity, contrast sensitivity, and visual fields.

80 acuity, stability of refractive correction, contrast sensitivity, and wavefront aberrometry.

81 distance visual acuity (CDVA), <5% and <25% contrast sensitivity, and WF aberrometry.

82 bles monitoring of cellular grafts with high contrast, sensitivity, and quantitativeness.

83 (AULCSF) was calculated for the analysis of contrast sensitivity as a single figure across a range o

84 no statistically significant differences in contrast sensitivity, astigmatism, coma, or higher-order

85 (FM 100), and measurements of the luminance contrast sensitivity at 11 spatial frequencies.

86 Glucose significantly improved the mean contrast sensitivity at 12 cycles/degree compared with 0

87 Contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd also had the strongest cor

88 correlation between logMAR visual acuity and contrast sensitivity at 6, 12, and 18 cpd (rho = -0.306,

89 improvements were accompanied by changes in contrast sensitivity at high spatial frequencies.

90 ccades are known to produce a suppression of contrast sensitivity at saccadic onset and an enhancemen

91 ded by poorer visual acuity, near vision, or contrast sensitivity at the beginning of each interval.

92 On multivariate analysis, contrast sensitivity (beta = 8.61, P < .001) and VA (bet

93 but on multivariate analysis was related to contrast sensitivity (beta = 8.69, P < .001).

94 ferences were found in Strehl ratio, VA, and contrast sensitivity between -3 and -6 D implantable col

95 sensitivity of BC inputs reflects different contrast sensitivity between BC subtypes.

96 significant differences were found in VA and contrast sensitivity between implantable collamer lens p

97 in gender, BMI, % body fat, visual acuity or contrast sensitivity between those with and without FMPD

98 PPC did not significantly change measures of contrast sensitivity, but increased the speed at which p

99 photopic retinal light responses and visual contrast sensitivity, but only transient changes were ob

100 oton-budget or resolution, enhances scotopic contrast sensitivity by 18-27%, and improves motion dete

101 ficantly related to visual response latency, contrast sensitivity (C-50 values), directional selectiv

102 athy Study (ETDRS) letter score change, mean contrast sensitivity change, proportion of patients with

103 sensitivity was measured using Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity charts.

104 Our results suggest that poor contrast sensitivity combined with lower information den

105 had higher levels of supervision and better contrast sensitivity compared to WFO.

106 Reduced log contrast sensitivity compared with controls (1.80+/-0.14

107 on emission tomography (PET) offers superior contrast sensitivity compared with MRI, and recent precl

108 econdary outcomes were spherical equivalent, contrast sensitivity, corneal aberrations, corneal biome

109 e VA = 20/48 vs. 20/24, p < 0.001) and worse contrast sensitivity (CS) (binocular CS = 1.9 vs. 1.5 lo

110 Best Corrected Visual Acuity (WB-BCVA), Mars Contrast Sensitivity (CS) and a Glare Test (GT) were per

111 In the clinic, binocular contrast sensitivity (CS) and better-eye visual acuity (

112 Contrast sensitivity (CS) and detection response times w

113 In addition, it assesses the role of contrast sensitivity (CS) as an intermediary step in the

114 nocular and binocular visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity (CS) at 10 cyc/deg and binocular su

115 Photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity (CS) by Pelli-Robson test and patie

116 t structural and functional measures predict contrast sensitivity (CS) outcomes in glaucomatous eyes.

117 At 3 months defocus testing, binocular contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic and mesopic con

118 0 cm slit-lamp examination; defocus testing; contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic and mesopic con

119 To evaluate visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), and central retinal thickness

120 binocular distance visual acuity, binocular contrast sensitivity (CS), and the binocular driving vis

121 nonbacklit chart, near visual acuity (NVA), contrast sensitivity (CS), CS with glare, and lighting.

122 roscopy score (IVCM), cystine crystal depth, contrast sensitivity (CS), photophobia score, and safety

123 Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), contrast sensitivity (CS), Raman spectroscopy, stereosco

124 and the CSV-1000 test were used to estimate contrast sensitivity (CS).

125 r visual field (VF), visual acuity (VA), and contrast sensitivity (CS).

126 of minimum angle of resolution [logMAR]) and contrast sensitivity (CS; 1.4 vs. 1.9 log units of CS [l

127 active thresholding algorithm 24-2 strategy, contrast sensitivity, dark adaptation, visual acuity, an

128 ractive Thresholding Algorithm 24-2 testing, contrast sensitivity, dark adaptation, visual acuity, an

129 Contrast sensitivity declines with age, high myopia, and

130 ed association between older adults' mesopic contrast sensitivity deficits and crash involvement rega

131 The contrast sensitivity, defocus curves, and a questionnair

132 The loss in contrast sensitivity developed over a 3- to 4-month peri

133 We find that contrast sensitivity development is independent of the a

134 In keratoconus subjects, contrast sensitivity displayed a strong correlation with

135 eby maintaining good visual acuity, but poor contrast sensitivity during photopic vision.

136 , predictability, astigmatic vector changes, contrast sensitivity, endothelial cell count, and possib

137 r pressure (IOP), pupillary aperture, glare, contrast sensitivity, endothelial cell density, anterior

138 inal dysfunction that manifests as decreased contrast sensitivity, even with good best-corrected visu

139 The WFG cohort had significantly better contrast sensitivity for mean and frequency of achieving

140 Contrast sensitivity, frequency doubling perimetry (FDP)

141 The area under the logarithmic contrast sensitivity function (AULCSF) was calculated fo

142 ements were made of axial length, logMAR VA, contrast sensitivity function (CSF [Freiburg acuity cont

143 myodesopsia, characterized by impairment in contrast sensitivity function (CSF) and decreased qualit

144 The contrast sensitivity function (CSF) relates the visibili

145 and best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and contrast sensitivity function (CSF) to evaluate vision.

146 The contrast sensitivity function (CSF), delineating contras

147 The contrast sensitivity function (CSF), how sensitivity var

148 rall, the difference in photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity function between the 2 groups was s

149 structure and by measuring visual acuity and contrast sensitivity function to assess vision.

150 ant differences between groups were found in contrast sensitivity function with and without glare for

151 visual acuity, best-corrected visual acuity, contrast sensitivity function, higher-order aberrations,

152 her parameters from the photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity functions (CSF) are associated with

153 Contrast sensitivity functions identified distinct profi

154 nce visual acuity (CDVA), residual cylinder, contrast sensitivity, glare acuity, pain score, and high

155 Contrast sensitivity has a higher correlation with corne

156 o significant differences were identified in contrast sensitivity, higher-order aberrations, or refra

157 No significant differences were found in contrast sensitivity, higher-order aberrations, or refra

158 rs (D4Rs) have been implicated in modulating contrast sensitivity; however, the cellular and molecula

159 Contrast sensitivity impairment is common in older adult

160 Contrast sensitivity in both day 1 and day 14 flies was

161 presenting VA, best-corrected VA, and SPARCS contrast sensitivity in both the better-seeing eye (r=0.

162 However, the impact of diabetes on contrast sensitivity in dim light is unknown.

163 r and functional sampling density and visual contrast sensitivity in healthy young eyes.

164 ucleus to hMT+, we propose that this altered contrast sensitivity in hMT+ could be consistent with in

165 ctional magnetic resonance imaging to record contrast sensitivity in hMT+ of their damaged hemisphere

166 A longitudinal study of spatial and temporal contrast sensitivity in Ins2(Akita/+) mice and wild-type

167 re Weber's Law of Sensation governs temporal contrast sensitivity in mouse.

168 Overall, mean +/- standard deviation contrast sensitivity in spatial frequencies of 3, 6, 12,

169 imal to no change to distance vision, better contrast sensitivity in the inlay eye when compared to t

170 Self-regulators had significantly poorer contrast sensitivity in their worse eye than non self-re

171 ptic nerve function, manifested as decreased contrast sensitivity (in the absence of ocular opportuni

172 ongest correlation was between SPARCS score (contrast sensitivity) in the better eye and total CAARV

173 Contrast sensitivity increased significantly (0.80+/-0.5

174 stance correction visual acuity outcomes and contrast sensitivity, intraocular aberrations, and defoc

175 We find that rod contrast sensitivity is initially strongly reduced at hi

176 An infant's contrast sensitivity is low and the ability to discrimin

177 Contrast sensitivity isocontours (CSIs) may reduce test

178 inance visual acuity, low luminance deficit, contrast sensitivity, light sensitivity in the macula, a

179 tionship between VFQ-25 and the logarithm of contrast sensitivity (logCS), using Spearman correlation

180 Contrast sensitivity loss occurred only at the highest s

181 In addition to causing visual acuity and contrast sensitivity loss, the central scotoma per se de

182 V neuroretinal disorder were identified by a contrast sensitivity <1.50 log units in either eye in th

183 ding acuity, distance acuity, reading speed, contrast sensitivity, mean central retinal sensitivity,

184 herence tomography [OCT]), retinal function (contrast sensitivity, measured by frequency-doubling tec

185 Contrast sensitivity measurements and quantification of

186 ed cones (best-corrected visual acuity [VA], contrast sensitivity), mixed cones and rods (low-luminan

187 measures are health-related quality of life, contrast sensitivity, near visual acuity, reading index,

188 In multivariate analysis, better contrast sensitivity (odds ratio [OR] 1.18, 95% confiden

189 ss the two eye inputs, and where tested, the contrast sensitivity of each eye input was roughly match

190 nonlinear transformation in SACs reduces the contrast sensitivity of FF inhibition to match the sensi

191 t gain control (normalization) increases the contrast sensitivity of individual neurons at the cost o

192 While the contrast sensitivity of infant neurons was reduced as ex

193 the interhemispheric input also changed the contrast sensitivity of many neurons, thereby acting on

194 Consistent with the high contrast sensitivity of ON alpha RGCs, mice lacking eith

195 We therefore examined scotopic contrast sensitivity of the optomotor response in the In

196 ween a model of type 1 diabetes and scotopic contrast sensitivity of the optomotor response is indica

197 Contrast sensitivity of the optomotor response to rotati

198 cated that temporal expectation enhanced the contrast sensitivity of visual targets.

199 and be partially responsible for the reduced contrast sensitivity or electroretinographic response de

200 relationship of age, sex, or treatment with contrast sensitivity or visual acuity outcomes.

201 OL implantation that assessed visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, or quality of vision.

202 etinopathy Study visual acuity, Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity, or sweep visual evoked potential c

203 ere were no significant differences in image contrast, sensitivity, or positive predictive values bet

204 temporal frequency bandwidth, but preserves contrast sensitivity, orientation tuning, and selectivit

205 lly aligned to the onset of movement, visual contrast sensitivity oscillates with periodicity within

206 rast sensitivity function (CSF), delineating contrast sensitivity over a wide range of spatial freque

207 Race/ethnicity was significantly related to contrast sensitivity (P < .001) and visual acuity (P

208 erved for distance visual acuity (P = .011), contrast sensitivity (P </= .0001), and mean central ret

209 a scores had an equivalent relationship with contrast sensitivity (P = .069).

210 e (P = .15) or near (P = .23) visual acuity, contrast sensitivity (P = .28), or glare (P = .88).

211 reflective specks were associated with worse contrast sensitivity (P = 0.0278), low-luminance VA (P =

212 Scotoma size and contrast sensitivity predicted outcomes in blind and see

213 sociation with age, r = -0.82 (< 0.001)) and contrast sensitivity presented with smaller values for o

214 al 4 and 12 degrees on microperimetry, color contrast sensitivity protan and tritan thresholds, patte

215 y visual acuity (r = -0.22) and Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity (r = 0.20) was weaker than that wit

216 A), corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA), contrast sensitivity, refractive error, and wavefront ab

217 Contrast sensitivity remained stable in PRP and IVB grou

218 ists improved spatial frequency threshold or contrast sensitivity, respectively.

219 ic tracking weekly visual acuity and monthly contrast sensitivity, retinal function with dark-adapted

220 e encoding D4Rs reduces the amplitude of the contrast sensitivity rhythm by reducing daytime sensitiv

221 Our results indicate that the contrast sensitivity rhythm is modulated by D4Rs via a s

222 ce show strikingly similar reductions in the contrast sensitivity rhythm to that in mice lacking D4Rs

223 ional domains: central vision, color vision, contrast sensitivity, scotopic function, photopic periph

224 Therefore, measurement of contrast sensitivity should be considered when evaluatin

225 Contrast sensitivity significantly improved at low (P <

226 BC inputs to SACs exhibit higher contrast sensitivity, so that the subsequent nonlinear t

227 Contrast sensitivity sometimes increases in patients wit

228 ing noise, may limit behaviorally determined contrast sensitivity soon after birth.SIGNIFICANCE STATE

229 ning Questionnaire (IND-VFQ), Spaeth/Richman Contrast Sensitivity (SPARCS) test, standard automated p

230 with the Pelli-Robson and the Spaeth-Richman Contrast Sensitivity (SPARCS) tests.

231 iring in primate visual area V2 by analyzing contrast sensitivity, spiking variability, and the amoun

232 y, we assessed best-corrected visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, straylight, keratometry, ultrasoni

233 s in binocular uncorrected visual acuity and contrast sensitivity suggest low pupillary dependence fo

234 or assay to investigate rod-driven, temporal contrast sensitivity (TCS) in mice of either sex.

235 n optical coherence tomography, Pelli-Robson Contrast Sensitivity test and the Spaeth-Richman Contras

236 The contrast sensitivity test appeared to have some advantag

237 rast Sensitivity test and the Spaeth-Richman Contrast Sensitivity test; (2) a performance based measu

238 y 15-hue color vision test; automated static contrast sensitivity test; and global electroretinograph

239 bgroups included 327 subjects that underwent contrast sensitivity testing and another 114 subjects fo

240 participants underwent photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity testing for targets from 1.5-18 cyc

241 Results suggest that photopic contrast sensitivity testing may not help us understand

242 examination including VA, color vision, and contrast sensitivity testing.

243 tests may be useful clinical surrogates for contrast sensitivity testing.

244 Contrast sensitivity tests and VF mean deviation were as

245 atistically significant correlations between contrast sensitivity tests and VF mean deviation with VR

246 stronger correlations with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity than did subjects with a central ap

247 matically embedded in visual oscillations of contrast sensitivity that fluctuate rhythmically in the

248 ally embedded in a trough of oscillations of contrast sensitivity that fluctuated rhythmically in the

249 Our study demonstrates a circadian rhythm of contrast sensitivity that peaks during the daytime, and

250 nergic expression of hLRRK2-G2019S increased contrast sensitivity throughout the retinal network.

251 /+) mice exhibit a uniform loss in optomotor contrast sensitivity to all spatial frequencies that, un

252 The current study investigated how contrast sensitivity to luminance- (luminance-modulated

253 Few studies have explored how contrast sensitivity to texture-defined information deve

254 In contrast, sensitivity to these agents is not affected by

255 from siblings of the Pop-DG population with contrasting sensitivity to develop WLT.

256 best-corrected visual acuity, accommodation, contrast sensitivity, topography and pachymetry with Sch

257 hat CB1R activation markedly improves visual contrast sensitivity under low-light conditions.

258 The photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity values of dominant and nondominant

259 Our aim was to compare contrast sensitivity values of the dominant and nondomin

260 Under photopic conditions, the contrast sensitivity values of the dominant eyes and non

261 , and 18 cpd), under mesopic conditions, the contrast sensitivity values of the dominant eyes were sl

262 Mean contrast sensitivity values were comparable.

263 rocessing measures, including visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, vernier acuity, binocular stereops

264 ce deficits (poorer visual acuity or spatial contrast sensitivity, visual field depression or defects

265 Other VA-related measures (mean VA, contrast sensitivity, Visual Functioning Questionnaire 2

266 Near contrast sensitivity was better under polychromatic than

267 Contrast sensitivity was examined at several spatial fre

268 Contrast sensitivity was high and similar in photopic an

269 Contrast sensitivity was lower in patients with multifoc

270 Contrast sensitivity was measured using Pelli-Robson con

271 Contrast sensitivity was measured with the Pelli-Robson

272 Contrast sensitivity was not a reliable surrogate for gl

273 An early, progressive loss in scotopic contrast sensitivity was observed in Ins2(Akita/+) mice

274 Initially, no orientation-contrast sensitivity was observed.

275 Photopic and mesopic contrast sensitivity was recorded.

276 Contrast sensitivity was significantly worse with myopia

277 Contrast sensitivity was slightly better with a red filt

278 Contrast sensitivity was the same for both groups (P >/=

279 tance visual acuity, refractive astigmatism, contrast sensitivity, wavefront aberrations, and refract

280 Postoperative contrast sensitivities were equal in both groups under m

281 ring rate, interspike interval variance, and contrast sensitivity were altered according to the magni

282 ameters' correlations with visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were determined in order to underst

283 ificant differences in Strehl ratio, VA, and contrast sensitivity were found between both incision si

284 sing the corneal surface's correlations with contrast sensitivity were from r = 0.25 (p = 0.03) at 3

285 Color vision ability and contrast sensitivity were impaired in all patients.

286 Visual acuity (VA) and contrast sensitivity were measured in 11 observers for 3

287 electroretinography and chromatic/achromatic contrast sensitivity were measured in these 42 patients

288 Photopic AULCSF and peak log contrast sensitivity were not associated with crash rate

289 H-R-R score and contrast sensitivity were positively correlated (P = .00

290 Although distance visual acuity and contrast sensitivity were predictors of LVQOL scores, "u

291 Stereoacuity and contrast sensitivity were within normal limits.

292 evoked potential, visual spatial acuity, and contrast sensitivity, were maintained at control levels

293 red to the multifocals, and better binocular contrast sensitivity when compared to all 3 intraocular

294 functional deficiencies in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity, whereas diabetic REDD1-deficient m

295 dren with CVI, 30 had measurable but reduced contrast sensitivity with a median threshold of 10.8% (r

296 Overall, a patient may achieve better contrast sensitivity with an aspheric IOL than with a sp

297 HRindex) was computed to capture the loss of contrast sensitivity with decreasing light level.

298 demonstrated better monocular and binocular contrast sensitivity without glare at low to mid spatial

299 ular assessments: high- and low-contrast VA, contrast sensitivity without glare, halos or starbursts,

300 ty previously observed, we hypothesized that contrast sensitivity would similarly be reduced.