Coarse stereopsis reveals residual binocular function in children with strabismus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depth information can be extracted from small retinal disparities (fine stereopsis), or large disparities that give rise to diplopia (coarse stereopsis). Stereopsis for large disparities may be spared when stereopsis for small disparities is disrupted by amblyopia, possibly due to the early development of coarse stereopsis (Giaschi et al. 2013, J Vision). Here we extend these findings to include children with strabismus alone with no confounding visual acuity deficits. Further, we evaluate the link between stereopsis and eye alignment following strabismus surgery. Stereoscopic stimuli were presented using liquid crystal shutter glasses to children (4-12 years) with poor stereoacuity due to strabismus or strabismic amblyopia. The task was to indicate whether a cartoon character was nearer or farther than a zero-disparity reference frame. Test disparities were categorized as fine (0.02, 0.08, 0.17, 0.33, 0.67, 1.0 degrees) or coarse (2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5 degrees) based on a preliminary diplopia assessment. A subset of children had undergone strabismus surgery and a retrospective chart review was performed to classify them as eyes-straight or eyes-misaligned, based on eye alignment one year post-surgery. Performance was similar in both groups of children, and matched that previously obtained from anisometropic and mixed amblyopia groups. In the coarse range, all groups of stereodeficient children were statistically indistinguishable from age-matched control children. However, the stereodeficient children showed significantly degraded performance in the fine range. Accuracy was higher in the eyes-straight group than in the eyes-misaligned group, particularly in the coarse range. Our results add to growing evidence that coarse stereopsis may be spared when fine stereopsis is disrupted, in this case from early visual deprivation due to strabismus. We propose that the coarse stereoscopic mechanism acts to keep the eyes aligned following surgery, and that it plays essentially the same role in the typical development of coordinated binocular eye movements. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".