These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

216 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7731649)

  • 41. Contrast sensitivity and motion discrimination in cannabis users.
    Mikulskaya E; Martin FH
    Psychopharmacology (Berl); 2018 Aug; 235(8):2459-2469. PubMed ID: 29909427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. Slope of psychometric functions and termination rule analysis for low contrast acuity charts.
    Carkeet A; Bailey IL
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2017 Mar; 37(2):118-127. PubMed ID: 28211180
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Relationship of Contrast Sensitivity Measured Using Quick Contrast Sensitivity Function With Other Visual Functions in a Low Vision Population.
    Stalin A; Dalton K
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2020 Jun; 61(6):21. PubMed ID: 32516407
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. Normative reference ranges for binocular summation as a function of age for low contrast letter charts.
    Pineles SL; Velez FG; Yu F; Demer JL; Birch E
    Strabismus; 2014 Dec; 22(4):167-75. PubMed ID: 25283818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Visual acuity and contrast sensitivity testing for sports vision.
    Zimmerman AB; Lust KL; Bullimore MA
    Eye Contact Lens; 2011 May; 37(3):153-9. PubMed ID: 21378574
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. High- and Low-contrast Letter Acuity during Image Motion in Normal Observers and Observers with Infantile Nystagmus Syndrome.
    Bedell HE; Song S
    Optom Vis Sci; 2021 Feb; 98(2):150-158. PubMed ID: 33534376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Assessing the reliability, discriminative ability, and validity of disability glare tests.
    Elliott DB; Bullimore MA
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 1993 Jan; 34(1):108-19. PubMed ID: 8425818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. Contrast sensitivity and other vision tests in the optic neuritis treatment trial.
    Trobe JD; Beck RW; Moke PS; Cleary PA
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1996 May; 121(5):547-53. PubMed ID: 8610798
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Vanishing Optotype acuity: repeatability and effect of the number of alternatives.
    Shah N; Dakin SC; Redmond T; Anderson RS
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 2011 Jan; 31(1):17-22. PubMed ID: 21158882
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Computerized repeating and averaging improve the test-retest variability of ETDRS visual acuity measurements: implications for sensitivity and specificity.
    Shah N; Laidlaw DA; Shah SP; Sivasubramaniam S; Bunce C; Cousens S
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2011 Dec; 52(13):9397-402. PubMed ID: 22003109
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. Visual acuities "hand motion" and "counting fingers" can be quantified with the freiburg visual acuity test.
    Schulze-Bonsel K; Feltgen N; Burau H; Hansen L; Bach M
    Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci; 2006 Mar; 47(3):1236-40. PubMed ID: 16505064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. A comparative study of grating and recognition visual acuity testing in children with anisometropic amblyopia without strabismus.
    Friendly DS; Jaafar MS; Morillo DL
    Am J Ophthalmol; 1990 Sep; 110(3):293-9. PubMed ID: 2396655
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. SPARCS and Pelli-Robson contrast sensitivity testing in normal controls and patients with cataract.
    Gupta L; Cvintal V; Delvadia R; Sun Y; Erdem E; Zangalli C; Lu L; Wizov SS; Richman J; Spaeth E; Spaeth GL
    Eye (Lond); 2017 May; 31(5):753-761. PubMed ID: 28106888
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Visual processing of motion-defined form: selective failure in patients with parietotemporal lesions.
    Regan D; Giaschi D; Sharpe JA; Hong XH
    J Neurosci; 1992 Jun; 12(6):2198-210. PubMed ID: 1607936
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Contrast sensitivity and glare in cataract using the Pelli-Robson chart.
    Williamson TH; Strong NP; Sparrow J; Aggarwal RK; Harrad R
    Br J Ophthalmol; 1992 Dec; 76(12):719-22. PubMed ID: 1486072
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Optotype recognition under degradation: comparison of size, contrast, blur, noise and contour-perturbation effects.
    Westheimer G
    Clin Exp Optom; 2016 Jan; 99(1):66-72. PubMed ID: 26792583
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Visual contrast sensitivity testing: a comparison of two F.A.C.T. test types.
    Hitchcock EM; Dick RB; Krieg EF
    Neurotoxicol Teratol; 2004; 26(2):271-7. PubMed ID: 15019960
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Multiple sclerosis can cause visual processing deficits specific to texture-defined form.
    Regan D; Simpson T
    Neurology; 1995 Apr; 45(4):809-15. PubMed ID: 7723975
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. The effect of different forms of monocular occlusion on measures of central visual function.
    Wildsoet C; Wood J; Maag H; Sabdia S
    Ophthalmic Physiol Opt; 1998 May; 18(3):263-8. PubMed ID: 9829113
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. The effect of blur on cortical responses to global form and motion.
    Burton EA; Wattam-Bell J; Rubin GS; Atkinson J; Braddick O; Nardini M
    J Vis; 2015; 15(15):12. PubMed ID: 26605841
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.