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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

21 Grating acuity correlated well with recognition acuity (

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

23 Grating acuity deficits in the immediate posttreatment p

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41 Grating acuity results correlated well with those of rec

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

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

44 The grating acuity stimulus was a sinusoidal grating, tempor

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

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

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

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

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

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

51 Grating acuity was measured using a two-alternative forc

52 Although grating acuity was one line better than recognition acui

53 Grating acuity was significantly poorer in animals with

54 Grating acuity was significantly poorer than normal in a

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

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

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

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

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

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