Binocular Adaptation to +2 D Lenses in Myopic and Emmetropic Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare vergence adaptation to +2 D addition lenses in myopic and emmetropic children and to evaluate the influence of the accommodative-vergence crosslink (AC/A ratio) on this adaptation. METHODS: Nine myopic and 11 emmetropic children fixated a near target at a distance of 33 cm. Measures of binocular and monocular accommodation and phoria were obtained during a 20-min near task with and without +2 D lenses. Response AC/A ratios were determined from the experimental results. Vergence adaptation was quantified by the magnitude of reduction in phoria and the percentage of completeness (PC, return of adapted phoria to habitual level) after the near task. RESULTS: Myopic children showed significantly higher AC/A ratios, which led to greater lens-induced exophoria and a greater demand for vergence adaptation. Both refractive groups showed significant vergence adaptation; however, myopes exhibited significantly reduced (p < 0.01) magnitudes compared with emmetropes (myopes = 3.95 +/- 0.15 Delta; emmetropes = 4.41 +/- 0.08 Delta). The mean PC was also significantly (p < 0.001) reduced in myopes (61.02 +/- 1.57) compared with emmetropes (76.6 +/- 2.10). There was a significant correlation between magnitude of adaptation and AC/A in both the refractive groups; however, myopes consistently showed reduced magnitudes compared to emmetropes. AC/A ratio influenced PC in emmetropic but not myopic children. In the accommodation system, +2 D lenses eliminated the accommodative lags observed in myopic children during natural viewing conditions. These lenses resulted in a small over-focus (-0.24 +/- 0.27 D) at the onset of near work, which decreased during sustained viewing through the near add. CONCLUSIONS: Myopic children demonstrate reduced magnitude and completeness of vergence adaptation to +2 D lenses. The magnitude of vergence adaptation varied with AC/A in both refractive groups; however, the presence of myopia differentiated the amount of adaptation for all AC/A ratios. Conversely, the degree of completeness appears to be primarily associated with the type of refractive error.
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 | 0.001 | 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".