Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 200

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Are All Aberrations Equal?

Applegate, Raymond A, Sarver, Edwin J, Khemsara, Vic·2002·Journal of Refractive Surgery

Abstract

ABSTRACT PURPOSE: To determine for a fixed RMS error (25 µm, over a 6-mm pupil) how each mode of the normalized Zernike polynomial (second through the fourth radial order) affects high and low contrast logMAR visual acuity. METHODS: Three healthy volunteers served as subjects. CTView was used to generate optically aberrated logMAR charts. Accommodation was paralyzed and pupils dilated. The foveal achromatic axis of the eye was aligned to a 3-mm pupil and the eye was optimally refracted. Aberrated acuity charts were read until five letters were missed. Data were normalized for each subject to the acuity obtained by reading unaberrated charts and plotted as letters lost as a function of Zernike mode. RESULTS: Defocus (Z p 0 2 ) decreased letter acuity more than astigmatism (Z p 2 2 , Z^sup -2^ 2 ). Coma (Z p 1 3 , Z^sup -1^ 3 ) decreased acuity more than trefoil (Z p 3 3 , Z^sup -3^ 3 ). Spherical aberration (Z p 0 4 ) and secondary astigmatism (Z p 2 42 , Z^sup -2^ 4 ) decreased acuity much more than quadrafoil (Z p 4 4 , Z^sup -4^ 4 ). CONCLUSIONS: 1. For an equal amount of RMS error not all coefficients of the Zernike polynomial induce equivalent losses in high and low contrast logMAR acuity. 2. Wavefront error concentrated near the center of the pyramid adversely affects visual acuity more than modes near the edge of the pyramid. 3. Large changes in chart appearance are not reflected in equally large decreases in visual performance (ie, subjects could correctly identify highly aberrated letters). 4. Interactions between modes complicate weighting each Zernike mode for visual impact. [J Refract Surg 2002;18:S556-S562]

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3928/1081-597x-20020901-12

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 200

Metadata

Authors
Applegate, R. A., Sarver, E. J., & Khemsara, V.
Venue
Journal of Refractive Surgery
Publisher
SLACK, Inc.
Published
2002-09
Volume
18
Issue
5
Pages
S556-62
ISSN
  • 1042-962X (ISSN-L)
  • 1081-597X
OpenAlex
W1557750203
Cited by
200
References
0
FWCI
4.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Are All Aberrations Equal? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3928/1081-597x-20020901-12
The paper
Applegate, R. A., Sarver, E. J., & Khemsara, V. (2002). Are All Aberrations Equal? Journal of Refractive Surgery. https://doi.org/10.3928/1081-597x-20020901-12

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.