Effects of Strabismic Amblyopia and Strabismus Without Amblyopia on Visuomotor Behavior: III. Temporal Eye-Hand Coordination During Reaching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine the effects of strabismic amblyopia and strabismus only, without amblyopia, on the temporal patterns of eye-hand coordination during both the planning and execution stages of visually-guided reaching. METHODS: Forty-six adults (16 with strabismic amblyopia, 14 with strabismus only, and 16 visually normal) executed reach-to-touch movements toward targets presented randomly 5° or 10° to the left or right of central fixation. Viewing conditions were binocular, monocular viewing with the amblyopic eye, and monocular viewing with the fellow eye (dominant and nondominant viewing for participants without amblyopia). Temporal coordination between eye and hand movements was examined during reach planning (interval between the initiation of saccade and reaching, i.e., saccade-to-reach planning interval) and reach execution (interval between the initiation of saccade and reach peak velocity [PV], i.e., saccade-to-reach PV interval). The frequency and dynamics of secondary reach-related saccades were also examined. RESULTS: The temporal patterns of eye-hand coordination prior to reach initiation were comparable among participants with strabismic amblyopia, strabismus only, and visually normal adults. However, the reach acceleration phase of participants with strabismic amblyopia and those with strabismus only were longer following target fixation (saccade-to-reach PV interval) than that of visually normal participants (P < 0.05). This effect was evident under all viewing conditions. The saccade-to-reach planning interval and the saccade-to-reach PV interval were not significantly different among participants with amblyopia with different levels of acuity and stereo acuity loss. Participants with strabismic amblyopia and strabismus only initiated secondary reach-related saccades significantly more frequently than visually normal participants. The amplitude and peak velocity of these saccades were significantly greater during amblyopic eye viewing in participants with amblyopia who also had negative stereopsis. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with strabismic amblyopia and strabismus only showed an altered pattern of temporal eye-hand coordination during the reach acceleration phase, which might affect their ability to modify reach trajectory using early online control. Secondary reach-related saccades may provide a compensatory mechanism with which to facilitate the late online control process in order to ensure relatively good reaching performance during binocular and fellow eye viewing.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".