Effect of proximity on the open-loop accommodative response of the eye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the relative contribution of proximal accommodation to the open loop accommodative response under open and closed loop conditions of vergence using 0.2 cycles per degree (c deg− 1) difference of Gaussian (DoG) targets at two test distances on five subjects. Accommodative responses were measured using a power refractor. Results show significant difference in the open loop accommodative response at the two distances under both open and closed loop conditions of vergence. Results obtained were applied to Hung and co-workers' [Investig. Ophthalmol. Vision Sci. 1991, 32, 2985–2991] proximal model of equations to find the relative contribution of proximal accommodation for the observed differences in the accommodative response. Results obtained show that the 0.2 c deg− 1 DoG stimulus at 0.4 m does not truly open the accommodation loop and the response obtained does have a significant level of proximal accommodation contribution. However, it can be used as a target to measure the relative changes in tonic accommodation and convergent accommodation responses and cannot be used for absolute measures when used at closer distances.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".