Eye Position Stability in Amblyopia and in Normal Binocular Vision
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated whether the sensory impairments of amblyopia are associated with a decrease in eye position stability (PS). METHODS: The positions of both eyes were recorded simultaneously in three viewing conditions: binocular, monocular fellow eye viewing (right eye for controls), and monocular amblyopic eye viewing (left eye for controls). For monocular conditions, movements of the covered eye were also recorded (open-loop testing). Bivariate contour ellipses (BCEAs), representing the region over which eye positions were found 68.2% of the time, were calculated and normalized by log transformation. RESULTS: For controls, there were no differences between eyes. Binocular PS (log(10)BCEA = -0.88) was better than monocular PS (log(10)BCEA = -0.59) indicating binocular summation, and the PS of the viewing eye was better than that of the covered eye (log(10)BCEA = -0.33). For patients, the amblyopic eye exhibited a significant decrease in PS during amblyopic eye (log(10)BCEA = -0.20), fellow eye (log(10)BCEA = 0.0004), and binocular (log(10)BCEA = -0.44) viewing. The PS of the fellow eye depended on viewing condition: it was comparable to controls during binocular (log(10)BCEA = -0.77) and fellow eye viewing (log(10)BCEA = -0.52), but it decreased during amblyopic eye viewing (log(10)BCEA = 0.08). Patients exhibited binocular summation during fellow eye viewing, but not during amblyopic eye viewing. Decrease in PS in patients was mainly due to slow eye drifts. CONCLUSIONS: Deficits in spatiotemporal vision in amblyopia are associated with poor PS. PS of amblyopic and fellow eyes is differentially affected depending on viewing condition.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it