ライフサイエンスコーパス: contrast sensitivity

1 Aging significantly degrades contrast sensitivity.

2 ection discrimination thresholds, as well as contrast sensitivity.

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

4 ctive error, uncorrected distance acuity and contrast sensitivity.

5 r hypertension) does not increase perimetric contrast sensitivity.

6 nal measures showed a fair relationship with contrast sensitivity.

7 underwent the Anwar technique showed better contrast sensitivity.

8 ensitivity, or sweep visual evoked potential contrast sensitivity.

9 nsitivity, and sweep visual evoked potential contrast sensitivity.

10 the main source of individual variations in contrast sensitivity.

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

12 hanges in monocular and binocular functional contrast sensitivity.

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

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

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

16 s of retinal ganglion cells showed decreased contrast sensitivity.

17 ask, in which performance is contingent upon contrast sensitivity.

18 Adaptation decreased contrast sensitivity.

19 es were compared with measurements of VF and contrast sensitivity.

20 ar/parvocellular function was assessed using contrast sensitivity.

21 also substantial, but did not generalize to contrast sensitivity.

22 d improved visual ability, but also enhanced contrast sensitivity.

23 ic curves from which we inferred measures of contrast sensitivity.

24 ted visual acuity (BCVA), reading speed, and contrast sensitivity.

25 w deficits in the OMR assay, including lower contrast sensitivity.

26 of higher-order neurons and thereby spatial contrast sensitivity.

27 sociated with postoperative visual acuity or contrast sensitivity.

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

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

30 rgery with no influence on the postoperative contrast sensitivity.

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

32 ia improved monocular and binocular BCVA and contrast sensitivity.

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

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

35 termediate, and near distances with improved contrast sensitivity.

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

37 50 times better signal-to-noise, 20% higher contrast sensitivity, 45% higher direction selectivity,

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

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

40 For contrast sensitivity, a significant advantage for aspher

41 sed by specific deficits in light responses, contrast sensitivity, acuity, and circadian rhythms in t

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

43 Impaired contrast sensitivity along chromatic axes was also obser

44 Contrast sensitivity also significantly improved postope

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

46 Contrast sensitivity and color vision loss were quantifi

47 Luminance contrast sensitivity and colour vision are considered to

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

49 Contrast sensitivity and colour vision impairments were

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

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

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

53 ical framework is presented for interpreting contrast sensitivity and gain loss to chromatic and achr

54 Contrast sensitivity and glare is an important subjectiv

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

56 The contrast sensitivity and glare tests were significantly

57 evoked potential (sVEP) was used to measure contrast sensitivity and grating acuity in 34 children w

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

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

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

61 Our results indicate that spatial contrast sensitivity and response amplitudes are strongl

62 Colour-contrast sensitivity and retinal nerve fibre layer thick

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

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

65 stance visual acuity (VA), reading speed, or contrast sensitivity and the National Eye Institute Visu

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

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

68 with low vision than visual factors such as contrast sensitivity and visual acuity, or the use of ma

69 Given the association between contrast sensitivity and visual disability, the benefici

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

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

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

73 dy population vision tests to assess acuity, contrast sensitivity, and color discrimination.

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

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

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

77 sults in reduced near visual acuity, reduced contrast sensitivity, and slower processing speed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

88 (BCVA), central macular thickness (CMT), and contrast sensitivity at 1,2, and 6 months were evaluated

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

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

91 Contrast sensitivity at 6 cpd also had the strongest cor

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

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

94 exposed to higher PCE levels exhibited lower contrast sensitivity at intermediate and high spatial fr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

106 e apparent, there are functional deficits in contrast sensitivity, color perception, and dark adaptat

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

116 ted perimetry (Humphrey Field Analyzer), and contrast sensitivity (CS) testing.

117 0 cm slit-lamp examination; defocus testing; contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic and mesopic con

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

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

120 after ETDRS visual acuity (VA), Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity (CS), and Goldmann visual field (VF

121 s (Shack-Hartmann aberrometer), 20/40 letter contrast sensitivity (CS), and TBU (retroillumination, R

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

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

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

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

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

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

128 l assessment (binocular visual acuity [BVA], contrast sensitivity [CS], and Humphrey VFs, both 10-2 a

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

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

131 Contrast sensitivity declines with age, high myopia, and

132 The contrast sensitivity, defocus curves, and a questionnair

133 However, contrast sensitivity depended substantially on NMDA rece

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

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

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

137 acuity, color perception, visual field, and contrast sensitivity), dynamic visual functions (motion

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

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

140 avioral methods were used to measure spatial contrast sensitivity, eye alignment, and stereopsis with

141 Psychometric functions for contrast sensitivity fitted for the regular and irregula

142 ntly better values were observed in photopic contrast sensitivity for high spatial frequencies in gro

143 Contrast sensitivity, frequency doubling perimetry (FDP)

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

145 The contrast sensitivity function (CSF) relates the visibili

146 The contrast sensitivity function (CSF), delineating contras

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

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

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

150 Contrast sensitivity functions were fit with a low-pass

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

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

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

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

155 indings can be used as a reference guide for contrast sensitivity in a general population and for com

156 lation between the amount of astigmatism and contrast sensitivity in all spatial frequencies (P<0.001

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

158 We first measured luminance contrast sensitivity in both eyes and showed that we had

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

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

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

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

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

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

165 rformance was state dependent: TMS decreased contrast sensitivity in the absence of adaptation but in

166 parameters accounting for contrast gain and contrast sensitivity in the inferred MC or PC pathway.

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

168 the chances of a clinically relevant gain in contrast sensitivity in the study population.

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

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

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

172 Contrast sensitivity increased significantly (0.80+/-0.5

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

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

175 mal visual acuity, should be considered when contrast sensitivity is tested.

176 visual acuity (letter or grating acuity) or contrast sensitivity (letter or grating contrast) tasks.

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

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

179 Contrast sensitivity loss occurred only at the highest s

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

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

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

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

184 Contrast sensitivity measurements and quantification of

185 Contrast sensitivity measures were obtained from most su

186 acy measures included changes in area of GA, contrast sensitivity, microperimetry measurements, and t

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

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

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

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

196 Contrast sensitivity of the optomotor response to rotati

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

198 lates perceptual processing by enhancing the contrast sensitivity of visual targets.

199 In contrast, sensitivity of the pupillary light reflex was

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

201 There was no difference in visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, or color vision of the PD subjects

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

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

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

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

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

207 beneficial effects of bevacizumab therapy on contrast sensitivity outcomes are expected to have a fav

208 -312 provided better intermediate vision and contrast sensitivity outcomes than the Acri.Lisa 366D.

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

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

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

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

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

214 of visual function, with patients with worse contrast sensitivity (PR logCS; Spearman's rho: 0.42; P

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

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

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

218 peed (r = 0.43 to 0.56, all P < 0.0001), and contrast sensitivity (r = -0.39 to -0.46, all P < 0.001)

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

220 Contrast sensitivity remained stable in PRP and IVB grou

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

222 nsitivity, visual acuity, and the inverse of contrast sensitivity, respectively.

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

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

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

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

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

228 Contrast sensitivity showed a significant variability am

229 Contrast sensitivity significantly improved at low (P <

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

231 Contrast sensitivity sometimes increases in patients wit

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

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

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

235 The substantial degree of loss in contrast sensitivity suggests that contrast is a sensiti

236 Training on the contrast sensitivity tasks produced substantial within-t

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

238 The contrast sensitivity test appeared to have some advantag

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

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

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

242 965 participants were selected randomly for contrast sensitivity testing.

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

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

245 Contrast sensitivity tests and VF mean deviation were as

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

247 likely to gain at least 6 letters or more of contrast sensitivity than the patients receiving standar

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

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

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

251 o basic visual dimensions (visual acuity and contrast sensitivity) that together account for most of

252 Given the similar increases in IOP and contrast sensitivity threshold and loss of visual acuity

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

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

255 n performance correlated with impairments in contrast sensitivity to low, but not high, spatial frequ

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

257 Interestingly, the mutants exhibit contrasting sensitivities to the allosteric effector, S-

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

259 ITIVE GERMINATION3 (AHG3) and AHG1, showed a contrasting sensitivity to PYR/PYL inhibition.

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

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

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

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

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

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

266 Mean contrast sensitivity values were comparable.

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

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

269 ing leads to deterioration in visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, visual field, and dark adaptation.

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

271 Contrast sensitivity was determined during the study usi

272 Contrast sensitivity was high and similar in photopic an

273 Contrast sensitivity was lower in patients with multifoc

274 Contrast sensitivity was measured using Pelli-Robson con

275 Contrast sensitivity was measured with the Pelli-Robson

276 Contrast sensitivity was not a reliable surrogate for gl

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

278 Initially, no orientation-contrast sensitivity was observed.

279 Contrast sensitivity was significantly worse with myopia

280 Contrast sensitivity was tested with best correction usi

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

282 Compared with men, contrast sensitivity was worse among women in spatial fr

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

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

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

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

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

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

292 creases in IOP and loss of visual acuity and contrast sensitivity when compared to other inbred or ou

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

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

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

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

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

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

299 Contrast sensitivity worsened significantly with age and

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