Binocular Vision in Older People with Adventitious Visual Impairment: Sometimes One Eye Is Better than Two
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the effect of adventitious visual impairment (low vision) on monocular and binocular spatial contrast sensitivity of older people. DESIGN: A between-within repeated measures design. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty-nine older adults between the ages of 50 and 96; 49 of the observers had age-related macular degeneration (AMD). MEASURES: Visual acuity screening and spatial contrast sensitivity. RESULTS: In almost half of the population with AMD, the sensitivity to spatial information, as measured by spatial contrast sensitivity, is worse when both eyes are used than when the stimuli are viewed with only one eye. This "binocular inhibition" is not related to the contrast sensitivity of the better eye or to acuities. Furthermore, this inhibition process is reflected primarily in images with medium to low spatial frequency components (medium to large size bars). CONCLUSIONS: These results have important implications for understanding the functional impact of low vision in older people. They suggest that almost one-half of older people with AMD view the world best using only one of their eyes, whereas for the other half, there is an advantage to using binocular vision for certain visual tasks.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".