Random‐Dot Stereopsis in Microstrabismic Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although children with microstrabismus demonstrate stereoscopic abilities when assessed with clinical tests containing visible contours (local stereopsis), severe stereoscopic impairments are reported when using random-dot stereogram (RDS). This differential performance may be associated with the decreasing interocular correlation resulting from the central suppression present in the deviated eye, affecting global stereopsis to a greater extent. METHODS: To test this hypothesis, stereoscopic performance on tasks using contour/local (experiment 1), RDS depth (experiment 2), and RDS shape discrimination (experiment 3) was obtained in nine microstrabismic children and compared with that of control participants. For each task, stereoscopic stimuli of 4 and 12 degrees diameter were used to differentially solicit the contribution of the central suppression area. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that performance on the local stereopsis task was very similar for both target sizes, measurable for all microstrabismic participants, and comparable to that of control subjects. On the other hand, global stereoacuity using RDS was not measurable for one-third of the microstrabismic participants when small stimuli were used, but stereoperception became possible for large stimuli condition in which the interocular correlation disruption was presumably negligible. Along these lines, global shape stereopsis was found to increase by nearly 50% in the microstrabismic group when large targets were used. In all experiments, only coarse stereopsis could be measured in microstrabismic children, regardless of the stimulus size. CONCLUSION: Although our findings suggest that interocular correlation may play a role in deficits of stereopsis in microstrabismus, other altered processes such as abnormal experience, retinal correspondence, and high-level coding are likely to also be involved.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".