ライフサイエンスコーパス: grating acuity

1 s were used to examine the relationship with grating acuity.

2 lationship between adherence to patching and grating acuity.

3 s alone was not sufficient to produce normal grating acuity.

4 ivalent to 1.75 c/deg), which is above their grating acuity.

5 or sighted eyes, interobserver agreement for grating acuity (across all five test ages) was 0.5 octav

6 nd a strong correlation between eye tracking grating acuity and VBS score (r = 0.72, P < .0001).

7 sts including Basic Light and Motion (BaLM), grating acuity, and greyscale contrast discrimination.

8 ting acuity develop at different rates, with grating acuity approaching adult levels earlier than Ver

9 The primary outcome measure was grating acuity assessed with behavioral methods.

10 Even in animals with normal grating acuity, assessments of optotype acuity revealed

11 e presented for 575 eyes with measurable TAC grating acuity at 1 year and 111 eyes that had no measur

12 ardless of diet, infants with BPD had poorer grating acuity at 2 (P<0.0002) and 4 (P<0.04) mo but not

13 len acuity, and 89.2% showed no quantifiable grating acuity at 5.5 years.

14 rmal Snellen acuity, and 94.3% showed normal grating acuity at 5.5 years.

15 f low-birth-weight infants, eyes with normal grating acuity at age 1 year generally showed normal Sne

16 e 1 year generally showed normal Snellen and grating acuity at age 5.5 years, and eyes that had no qu

17 that were blind (i.e., had no measurable TAC grating acuity) at 1 year, 96.8% showed no quantifiable

18 o complications secondary to surgery, normal grating acuity can be obtained in neonatal monkey eyes t

19 However, these good outcomes for grating acuity cannot be attained without occlusion ther

20 sted with both recognition acuity charts and grating acuity cards (Teller) by masked observers.

21 ition acuity, whereas 61% were testable with grating acuity cards.

22 Grating acuity correlated well with recognition acuity (

23 the adverse effects of unequal competition, grating acuity deficits during the immediate posttreatme

24 Grating acuity deficits in the immediate posttreatment p

25 eral cataract (n=7) had significantly larger grating acuity deficits than patients with a history of

26 VEP Vernier acuity and grating acuity develop at different rates, with grating

27 On average, the interocular grating acuity difference increased systematically from

28 relationship between VEP Vernier acuity and grating acuity follows the same developmental trajectory

29 New devices with 22 um pixels increased the grating acuity from the 100 um capability of PRIMA impla

30 was used to measure contrast sensitivity and grating acuity in 34 children with CVI at 5 months to 5

31 IOLs combined with EWCLs can lead to normal grating acuity in a primate model.

32 s a developmental delay in the maturation of grating acuity in both eyes of both treatment groups.

33 OH) procedure was used to measure monocular grating acuity in children at ages 1 and 5.5 years.

34 tential measures of contrast sensitivity and grating acuity in children with CVI with those of age-ma

35 monkeys that underwent daily 70% occlusion, grating acuity in the pseudophakic eyes eventually matur

36 ement with a newer device, and the resulting grating acuity in-vivo.

37 minated by the rewired pathway, although the grating acuity is lower than that of the normal visual p

38 normal and blind at 1 year (i.e., measurable grating acuity <1.6 cyc/deg); thus, the predictive value

39 ly affect its electrical excitability, while grating acuity matches the pixel pitch down to 40 mum an

40 s, letter acuity is not a useful option, and grating acuity may underestimate the depth of strabismic

41 In our cohort of children with CVI, grating acuity measured by eye tracking demonstrated hig

42 Excellent interobserver agreement for grating acuity measurements and for letter acuity measur

43 Behavioral methods were used to assess grating acuity, optotype acuity (Landolt C), and contras

44 tegorized as either visual acuity (letter or grating acuity) or contrast sensitivity (letter or grati

45 Adherence was associated with grating acuity (r(Spearman) = -0.27, p < 0.01), but more

46 Grating acuity results correlated well with those of rec

47 position within the normal range of an eye's grating acuity score at 1 year was not predictive of the

48 and PPV (57%-50%) for amblyopia, similar to grating acuity (sensitivity = 38%, PPV = 31%).

49 The grating acuity stimulus was a sinusoidal grating, tempor

50 Both Teller grating acuity (TAC) and recognition acuity using the co

51 Wider use of grating acuity testing allows a more complete assessment

52 cortical representation of both Vernier and grating acuity thresholds in V1 was found to be roughly

53 hildren with CVI paradoxically have improved grating acuity thresholds when the stimulus is shown usi

54 The slope of log grating acuity versus log age (+/-SEM) was normal, 0.73;

55 In this study, grating acuity was measured in a forced-choice Y maze an

56 Grating acuity was measured using a two-alternative forc

57 Although grating acuity was one line better than recognition acui

58 Grating acuity was significantly poorer in animals with

59 Grating acuity was significantly poorer than normal in a

60 Each child's grating acuity was tested by two independent observers.

61 Normal adult levels of grating acuity were eventually achieved in the group tre

62 For strabismic children, hyperacuity and grating acuity were identified as normal/amblyopic based

63 degrees radius 16 RF), optotype acuity, and grating acuity were measured.

64 thresholds and spatial frequency thresholds (grating acuities) were derived by extrapolating the tuni

65 sing this strategy, we demonstrated that the grating acuity with 40 mum pixels matches the pixel pitc

66 ichelson), and 32 had measurable but reduced grating acuity with median threshold 0.49 logMAR (9.8 c/