The Effect of Bangerter Filters on Binocular Function in Observers With Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We assessed whether partial occlusion of the nonamblyopic eye with Bangerter filters can immediately reduce suppression and promote binocular summation of contrast in observers with amblyopia. METHODS: In Experiment 1, suppression was measured for 22 observers (mean age, 20 years; range, 14-32 years; 10 females) with strabismic or anisometropic amblyopia and 10 controls using our previously established "balance point" protocol. Measurements were made at baseline and with 0.6-, 0.4-, and 0.2-strength Bangerter filters placed over the nonamblyopic/dominant eye. In Experiment 2, psychophysical measurements of contrast sensitivity were made under binocular and monocular viewing conditions for 25 observers with anisometropic amblyopia (mean age, 17 years; range, 11-28 years; 14 females) and 22 controls (mean age, 24 years; range, 22-27; 12 female). Measurements were made at baseline, and with 0.4- and 0.2-strength Bangerter filters placed over the nonamblyopic/dominant eye. Binocular summation ratios (BSRs) were calculated at baseline and with Bangerter filters in place. RESULTS: Experiment 1: Bangerter filters reduced suppression in observers with amblyopia and induced suppression in controls (P = 0.025). The 0.2-strength filter eliminated suppression in observers with amblyopia and this was not a visual acuity effect. Experiment 2: Bangerter filters were able to induce normal levels of binocular contrast summation in the group of observers with anisometropic amblyopia for a stimulus with a spatial frequency of 3 cycles per degree (cpd, P = 0.006). The filters reduced binocular summation in controls. CONCLUSIONS: Bangerter filters can immediately reduce suppression and promote binocular summation for mid/low spatial frequencies in observers with amblyopia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".