Horizontal Saccade Dynamics After Childhood Monocular Enucleation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We investigated the effects of monocularity on oculomotor control by examining the characteristics of the horizontal saccades of people with one eye, and comparing them to those of a group of age-matched controls who viewed the stimuli monocularly and binocularly. METHODS: Participants were tested in a no-gap, no-overlap saccadic task using a video-based remote eye tracker. One group consisted of unilaterally eye enucleated participants (N = 15; mean age, 31.27 years), the other of age-matched people with normal binocular vision (N = 18; mean age, 30.17 years). RESULTS: The horizontal saccade dynamics of enucleated people are similar to those of people with normal binocularity when they view monocularly and, with the exception of latency, when they view binocularly. The data show that the monocular saccades of control and enucleated observers have longer latencies than the binocular saccades of the control group, the saccades of the enucleated observers are as accurate as those of the controls viewing monocularly or binocularly, smaller saccades are more accurate than the larger ones, and abducting saccades are faster than adducting saccades. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the true monocularity produced by early enucleation does not result in slower visual processing in the afferent (sensory) pathway, or in deficits in the efferent (motor) pathways of the saccadic system. Possible mechanisms to account for the effects of monocular vision on saccades are discussed.
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".