Effects of Anisometropic Amblyopia on Visuomotor Behavior, Part 2: Visually Guided Reaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The effects of impaired spatiotemporal vision in amblyopia on visuomotor skills have rarely been explored in detail. The goal of this study was to examine the influences of amblyopia on visually guided reaching. METHODS: Fourteen patients with anisometropic amblyopia and 14 control subjects were recruited. Participants executed reach-to-touch movements toward targets presented randomly 5° or 10° to the left or right of central fixation in three viewing conditions: binocular, monocular amblyopic eye, and monocular fellow eye viewing (left and right monocular viewing for control subjects). Visual feedback of the target was removed on 50% of the trials at the initiation of reaching. RESULTS: Reaching accuracy was comparable between patients and control subjects during all three viewing conditions. Patients' reaching responses were slightly less precise during amblyopic eye viewing, but their precision was normal during binocular or fellow eye viewing. Reaching reaction time was not affected by amblyopia. The duration of the acceleration phase was longer in patients than in control subjects under all viewing conditions, whereas the duration of the deceleration phase was unaffected. Peak acceleration and peak velocity were also reduced in patients. CONCLUSIONS: Amblyopia affects both the programming and the execution of visually guided reaching. The increased duration of the acceleration phase, as well as the reduced peak acceleration and peak velocity, might reflect a strategy or adaptation of feedforward/feedback control of the visuomotor system to compensate for degraded spatiotemporal vision in amblyopia, allowing patients to optimize their reaching performance.
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".