You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .

Vision

Vision is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal on vision published quarterly online by MDPI.

Indexed in PubMed | Quartile Ranking JCR - Q3 (Psychology, Experimental | Ophthalmology)

All Articles (555)

Can brightness illusions modulate ocular accommodation? Previous studies have shown that brightness illusions can influence pupil size as if caused by actual luminance increases. However, their effects on other ocular responses—such as accommodative or focusing dynamics—remain largely unexplored. This study investigates the influence of brightness illusions, under two ambient lighting conditions, on accommodative and pupillary dynamics (physiological responses), and on perceived brightness and visual comfort (subjective responses). Thirty-two young adults with healthy vision viewed four stimulus types (blue bright and non-bright, yellow bright and non-bright) under low- and high-contrast ambient lighting while ocular responses were recorded using a WAM-5500 open-field autorefractor. Brightness and comfort were rated after each session. The results showed that high ambient contrast (mesopic) and brightness illusions increased accommodative variability, while yellow stimuli elicited a greater lag under photopic condition. Pupil size decreased only under mesopic lighting. Perceived brightness was enhanced by brightness illusions and blue color, whereas visual comfort decreased for bright illusions, especially under low light. These findings suggest that ambient lighting and visual stimulus properties modulate both physiological and subjective responses, highlighting the need for dynamic accommodative assessment and visually ergonomic display design to reduce visual fatigue during digital device use.

30 September 2025

Stimuli used in the experiment. (A,C) correspond to the two illusions of brightness conditions ((A): yellow with brightness; (C): blue with brightness). (B,D) are the two control conditions without illusions of brightness ((D) blue without brightness; (B) yellow without brightness).
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

Virtual reality (VR) technology has emerged as a promising alternative to conventional perimetry for assessing visual fields. However, the clinical validity of commercially available VR-based perimetry devices remains uncertain due to variability in hardware, software, and testing protocols. A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines to evaluate the validity of VR-based perimetry compared to the Humphrey Field Analyzer (HFA). Literature searches were performed across MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Studies were included if they assessed commercially available VR-based visual field devices in comparison to HFA and reported visual field outcomes. Devices were categorized by regulatory status (FDA, CE, or uncertified), and results were synthesized narratively. Nineteen studies were included. Devices such as Heru, Olleyes VisuALL, and the Advanced Vision Analyzer showed promising agreement with HFA metrics, especially in moderate to advanced glaucoma. However, variability in performance was observed depending on disease severity, population type, and device specifications. Limited dynamic range and lack of eye tracking were common limitations in lower-complexity devices. Pediatric validation and performance in early-stage disease were often suboptimal. Several VR-based perimetry systems demonstrate clinically acceptable validity compared to HFA, particularly in certain patient subgroups. However, broader validation, protocol standardization, and regulatory approval are essential for widespread clinical adoption. These devices may support more accessible visual field testing through telemedicine and decentralized care.

24 September 2025

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram illustrating the study selection process. This flowchart outlines the identification, screening, exclusion, and inclusion of studies in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines.

Temporal processing is fundamental to visual perception, yet little is known about how it functions under compromised visual field conditions or whether emotional stimuli, as reported in the literature, can modulate it. This study investigated temporal resolution using a two-flash fusion paradigm with a static, semi-transparent overlay that degraded the right visual hemifield of opacity 0.60 and examined the potential modulatory effects of emotional faces. In Experiment 1, participants were asked to report if they perceived one or two flashes presented at either −6° (normal vision) or +6° (beneath a scotoma) across eight interstimulus intervals, ranging from 10 to 80 ms with a step size of 10 ms. Results showed significantly impaired temporal discrimination in the degraded vision condition, with elevated thresholds 52.29 ms vs. 34.78 ms and reduced accuracy, particularly at intermediate ISIs 30–60 ms. In Experiment 2, we introduced emotional faces before flash presentation to determine whether emotional content would differentially affect temporal processing. Our findings indicate that neither normal nor scotoma-impaired temporal processing was modulated by the specific emotional content (angry, happy, or neutral) of the facial primes.

16 September 2025

Schematic of the trials in Experiment 1, Each trial began with a central fixation cross displayed for 500 ms, followed by the presentation of the scotoma that covered the right half of the screen 50 ms before the drawing of flashes. The first flash appeared at either −6° (left) or +6° (right) for 10 ms, and this was followed by a variable inter-stimulus interval (ISI) ranging from 10 to 80 ms, where only the overlay and fixation cross were visible. The second flash then appeared at the exact location as the first for another 10 ms, followed by an elapsed period of 250 ms in which only the scotoma remained visible. Finally, a response prompt appeared, asking, “Did you see one or two flashes?” Participants were instructed to press ‘z’ for one flash or ‘m’ for two flashes.
  • Systematic Review
  • Open Access

Background: Stevens–Johnson Syndrome (SJS) and Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis (TEN) are rare, life-threatening mucocutaneous disorders often associated with severe ophthalmic complications. Ocular involvement occurs in 50–68% of cases and can result in permanent vision loss. Despite this, optimal management strategies remain unclear, and treatment practices vary widely. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines and prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD420251022655). Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL were searched from 1998 to 2024 for English-language studies reporting treatment outcomes for ocular SJS/TEN. Results: A total of 194 studies encompassing 6698 treated eyes were included. Best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) improved in 52.2% of eyes, epithelial regeneration occurred in 16.8%, and symptom relief was reported in 26.3%. Common treatments included topical therapy (n = 1424), mucosal grafts (n = 1220), contact lenses (n = 1134), amniotic membrane transplantation (AMT) (n = 889), systemic medical therapy (n = 524), and punctal occlusion (n = 456). Emerging therapies included TNF-alpha inhibitors, anti-VEGF agents, photodynamic therapy, and 5-fluorouracil. Conclusions: Disease-stage-specific therapy is crucial in ocular SJS/TEN. Acute interventions such as AMT may prevent long-term complications, while chronic care targets structural and tear-film abnormalities. Further prospective studies are needed to standardize care and optimize visual outcomes.

11 September 2025

PRISMA flow diagram.

News & Conferences

Issues

Open for Submission

Editor's Choice

Reprints of Collections

Visual Mental Imagery System
Reprint

Visual Mental Imagery System

How We Image the World
Editors: David F. Marks
Eye Movements and Visual Cognition
Reprint

Eye Movements and Visual Cognition

Editors: Raymond M. Klein, Simon P. Liversedge

Get Alerted

Add your email address to receive forthcoming issues of this journal.

XFacebookLinkedIn
Vision - ISSN 2411-5150Creative Common CC BY license