ライフサイエンスコーパス: glare

1 r, white participants were more sensitive to glare.

2 re triplets better in the clinic for CS with glare.

3 s await continuing progress in understanding glare.

4 ophobia and 10 patients (62.50%) reported no glare.

5 etinal image contrast or decrease disability glare.

6 with three aspects of visual performance in glare.

7 he fovea is to improve visual performance in glare.

8 ell as to eliminate unwanted reflections and glare.

9 ing in-home activities (15.1%), lighting and glare (11.7%), and facial recognition and social interac

10 ail, (2) peripheral vision, (3) darkness and glare, (4) household chores, and (5) outdoor mobility.

11 , documentation was discordant for reporting glare (48.1% [78 of 162]), pain or discomfort (26.5% [43

12 Subjective impairment through glare (9.12+/-1.62 preoperatively vs. 3.07+/-2.29 postop

13 Mean glare acuity was better in toric IOL eyes (toric IOL = 0

14 A), residual cylinder, contrast sensitivity, glare acuity, pain score, and higher-order aberrations.

15 ative pain and corneal aberrations, and poor glare acuity.

16 that decrease daytime discomfort or dazzling glare also reduce nighttime mesopic and scotopic sensiti

17 t surrounding the KPro is the main source of glare and can be controlled with a dark-iris contact len

18 on-dislocation and incorrect lens power, and glare and optical aberrations are leading indications fo

19 modern intraocular lenses, with incidence of glare and optical aberrations increasing, especially in

20 The visual acuity, subjective glare and photophobia reduction, anatomic outcome, and c

21 ual improvement as well as reduction of both glare and photophobia.

22 leads to decreased visual quality marked by glare and photophobia.

23 For the disability glare and photostress recovery portions of the experimen

24 In common environments, glare and target illumination sources have the same or s

25 t common consisting of linear dysphotopsias, glare, and blurring in 2.7%, 4.3%, and 4.3% of patients,

26 ty (NVA), contrast sensitivity (CS), CS with glare, and lighting.

27 e in glare: photostress recovery, disability glare, and visual discomfort.

28 th age for the acuity, contrast sensitivity, glare, and visual field tests.

29 years (r = -0.36; P = 0.02), with disability glare at 3 years (r = -0.41; P = 0.02), and with best-co

30 r and binocular contrast sensitivity without glare at low to mid spatial frequencies compared with th

31 ected visual acuity and cause starbursts and glare at night.

32 Glare can be reduced significantly with the use of a con

33 c cornea was used to determine the impact of glare caused by scatter in the cornea and its control wi

34 isual quality may be poorer under mesopic or glare conditions.

35 times (average P < 0.003), lower disability glare contrast thresholds (average P < 0.004), and lower

36 raocular pressure (IOP), pupillary aperture, glare, contrast sensitivity, endothelial cell density, a

37 Optical glare countermeasures are available for daytime driving

38 some impressive recent gains, improving the glaring deficiencies in health care quality is proving t

39 ch is clarifying how discomfort and dazzling glare depend on different retinal photoreceptors and noc

40 n improvements in photostress recovery (PR), glare disability (GD), and chromatic contrast (CC).

41 Glare disability has often been studied independently.

42 data suggest that the MP carotenoids reduce glare discomfort and disability, shorten photostress rec

43 ving patients' survival from cancer with one glaring exception: brain cancer.

44 ntrast sensitivity function with and without glare for any spatial frequency (P > .05).

45 A glaring gap in our knowledge remains the basis by which

46 retinal detachment, cystoid macular oedema, glare, halos and posterior capsule opacification.

47 While positive dysphotopsia (glare, halos and starbursts) has been largely attributed

48 ow-contrast VA, contrast sensitivity without glare, halos or starbursts, defocus curves, optical scat

49 es assessing visual symptoms (double images, glare, halos, and starbursts), dry eye symptoms, satisfa

50 Visual symptoms (double images, glare, halos, and/or starbursts), dry eye symptoms, part

51 rted in 96% of subjects for visual symptoms (glare, halos, double vision, and fluctuations in vision)

52 Postoperative dysphotopsia introduces glare, halos, starbursts and shadows in a small number o

53 These artifacts manifest themselves as glare, halos, starbursts and shadows.

54 Advances in understanding glare have been hampered by its complex, multidisciplina

55 Photophobia and glare improved in every case except for 1 (93.75%).

56 The effect of glare in implanted eyes was measured with a brightness a

57 historical and contemporary publications on glare in ophthalmology, illumination engineering, neurol

58 Contrast sensitivity and glare is an important subjective test, which is affected

59 Disability glare is caused by scattered intraocular light (straylig

60 Discomfort glare is caused by situational illumination too intense

61 Glare is problematic for patients and clinicians despite

62 This instrument-induced glare is produced far from the sample plane, inside the

63 ral and/or molecular imaging is particularly glaring, leading to a complicated and erratic decision a

64 However, there remains a glaring mismatch between where studies on physical activ

65 photopic vision with frequent complaints of glare necessitates penetrating keratoplasty in the major

66 We provide one pathway through the forest of glare nomenclature and mechanisms.

67 Dazzling glare occurs when high illuminances are spread across th

68 ransient light-sensitivity syndrome, rainbow glare, opaque bubble layer, epithelial breakthrough of g

69 undesired visual acuity without symptoms of glare/optical aberrations.

70 patients reported no foreign body sensation, glare, or other side effects with topical CsA treatment.

71 l acuity, contrast sensitivity (P = .28), or glare (P = .88).

72 el on three aspects of visual performance in glare: photostress recovery, disability glare, and visua

73 These patients often complained of glare preoperatively, which most likely resulted from li

74 Smaller pupil diameter during glare presentation significantly correlated with higher

75 Visual discomfort during the glare presentation was assessed with a visual discomfort

76 multidimensional analysis, and addresses the glaring proteomic need to isolate trace analytes from hi

77 Robson contrast sensitivity with and without glare, Randot stereoacuity, and 60 degrees Humphrey visu

78 the model-eye measurements and patients' BAT glare responses identified that the hazy corneal graft s

79 f 0.14 to 1.98, but scores on the NEI-RQL-42 glare scale worsened at the 1-month follow-up.

80 th moderate or better vision (<3 letters for glare sensitivity and <20 points missed for binocular vi

81 Glare sensitivity and binocular field loss were signific

82 vere visual impairment, especially increased glare sensitivity and cosmetic disturbances.

83 hose with poorer levels of vision, increased glare sensitivity or reduced visual fields were associat

84 issed for binocular visual fields) increased glare sensitivity or reduced visual fields were, paradox

85 The correlation between acuity and glare sensitivity was low (rho = 0.12).

86 Visual acuity, contrast and glare sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields are s

87 under normal and low luminance, contrast and glare sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields were

88 mal and low luminance, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, stereoacuity, and visual fields.

89 Glare sensitivity, visual field loss, and UFOV were sign

90 n do white participants for all tests except glare sensitivity.

91 ty, contrast sensitivity, visual fields, and glare sensitivity.

92 nch-measured point spread function (PSF) and glare sources were compared.

93 The published day driving and glare subscales should be examined for relevance and con

94 m-subscale associations; the day driving and glare subscales were not acceptable regarding these prop

95 Clarity of Vision, Near Vision, Far Vision, Glare, Symptoms, Worry, and Satisfaction with Correction

96 -BCVA), Mars Contrast Sensitivity (CS) and a Glare Test (GT) were performed to all patients.

97 aboratory test of visual stress (the Pattern Glare Test), administered online, corroborated the findi

98 he clinic and home for DVA, NVA, and CS with glare testing (P < .05, multiple regression model).

99 s were performed by contrast sensitivity and glare tests for each group.

100 The contrast sensitivity and glare tests were significantly affected in the forme fru

101 Unlike previous studies of MP and glare, the present study used free-viewing conditions, i

102 nts with multifocal IOLs complain of halo or glare, these symptoms can be minimized by surgical techn

103 specific difficulties with tasks related to glare, visual processing speed, visual search, and perip

104 Glare was delivered via high-bright-white LEDs.

105 Disability glare was measured with a straylight meter.

106 riving, reading road signs, and experiencing glare were frequent, but inquiries about driving tasks (

107 "some" difficulty performing tasks involving glare, whereas 22% reported at least "some" difficulty w

108 Additionally, the glaring white light excited at a wavelength of 325 nm wa