MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985415350 · doi:10.1167/4.8.774

Do Optical Immaturities Account for the Early Limitations in Human Spatial Vision?

2004· article· en· W1985415350 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard J. Adams, Mary L. Courage

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutorefractorRefractive errorCycloplegiaVisual acuityOptometryAnisometropiaNear visionPsychologyMedicineOphthalmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During early infancy, spatial vision is very immature and infants possess relatively high levels of spherical (primarily hyperopic) and astigmatic refractive error. Although optical error is the primary contributor to impaired spatial vision in adults and older children, the role that “front end” immaturities play in infantile visual limitations has yet to be quantified. In the present study, we employ newly developed refractive technology to measure refractive error and visual acuity in individual infants, children, and adults. Left eyes from 6-mo-old (n=28) and 12-mo-old (n=30) infants were refracted twice with the Welch-Allyn SureSight autorefractor (without cycloplegia), and assessed with the Teller acuity cards. For comparison, 3-4-yr-old preschoolers (n=56), 7–8 yr-old children (n=44), and young adults (n= 59) were refracted, and acuity assessed (uncorrected) with either Snellen letters (adults and children) or LEA symbols (preschoolers). Calculations of total absolute refractive error[ |Sph| + |Cyl| ], spherical equivalent, and other linear models of aggregate refractive error all revealed consistent results: Levels of visual acuity in adults and children were predicted well from the magnitude of uncorrected refractive error (all r > 0.59, all p < 0.01). However, neither 6- nor 12-mo-old infants showed any relationship between acuity and refractive error (range or r = −0.08 to 0.06). This is the first study to provide systematic developmental data on the relationship between spatial vision and refractive error from infancy to adulthood. In adults, older children, and preschoolers, spatial vision is predicted well by optical factors. Conversely, almost none of the variation in visual acuity among individual infants is accounted for by differences in optics. This supports current neurological and psychophysical models of visual development which propose that early spatial vision is constrained almost entirely by photoreceptoral and neural immaturities. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207