Effect of testing position on dynamic visual acuity.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of altering testing position on dynamic visual acuity (DVA) in vestibulopathic adults. STUDY DESIGN: Quasiexperimental research. SETTING: Outpatient vestibular program. PATIENTS: Twelve vestibulopathic adults with impaired DVA in the sitting position. METHODS: DVA scores were collected during (1) sitting, (2) standing comfortably, and (3) semitandem standing as subjects viewed a vision (E) chart 3.48 m in front of them. DVA was obtained as the head was passively moved by the evaluator at a frequency of 1.5 Hz in both horizontal and vertical directions. A further subgroup of subjects (n=5) was retested after performing the "viewing x1" gaze stability home exercise four times daily (1 minute duration in the horizontal direction while sitting) for 2 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Noncomputerized DVA score. RESULTS: The DVA score remained constant independent of testing position as the Friedman test did not reveal any significant differences in the DVA scores in the horizontal or vertical direction. Subjects who improved after performing the viewing x1 exercise in the horizontal direction in the sitting position tended to have the same improvement in DVA in all three positions. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study show that DVA score is independent of testing position. This is clinically important since it shows that the results of DVA testing in one position are valid for other positions and that subjects can be trained to improve their DVA in a sitting posture while having carry-over effects to other, more challenging postures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".