Effects of Induced Monocular Blur versus Anisometropic Amblyopia on Saccades, Reaching, and Eye-Hand Coordination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We previously showed that anisometropic amblyopia affects the programming and execution of saccades and reaching movements. In our current study, we investigated whether these amblyopia-related changes simply are due to a reduction in visual acuity alone by inducing artificial blur in one eye in visually-normal participants. METHODS: Twelve visually-normal participants performed saccades and reach-to-touch movements to targets presented on a computer screen during binocular and monocular viewing. A contact lens was used to blur the vision of one eye to a mean acuity level of 20/50. Saccades and reaching kinematics were compared before blur, immediately after blur, and 5 hours after blur was induced. The 5 hours after blur kinematic data from visually-normal participants also were compared to those from 12 patients with anisometropic amblyopia who had comparable acuity in the amblyopic eye. RESULTS: Primary saccades (latency, amplitude, peak velocity), reaching movements (reaction time, movement time, peak acceleration, duration of the acceleration phase), and eye-hand coordination (saccade-to-reach planning interval, saccade-to-reach peak velocity interval) were not affected by induced monocular blur in visually-normal participants, either immediately or 5 hours after blur. Compared to visually-normal participants after 5 hours of blur, patients with anisometropic amblyopia had significantly longer and more variable saccade latency during amblyopic eye viewing, lower peak acceleration, and a longer acceleration phase during reaching, and a different temporal pattern of eye-hand coordination. CONCLUSIONS: Artificially-induced monocular blur in visually-normal participants did not affect saccades, reaching movements, and eye-hand coordination during a simple reach-to-touch task even after a period of blur exposure. In contrast, patients with anisometropic amblyopia demonstrated significantly different kinematics while performing the same task. These results indicate that loss of visual acuity alone cannot explain the kinematic changes seen in patients with mild anisometropic amblyopia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".