Fixation Stability and Viewing Distance in Patients with AMD
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: People with normal vision perform activities of daily living binocularly, while changing viewing distance frequently and effortlessly. Typically, in patients with age-related macular degeneration (AMD), fixation stability is recorded with monocular instruments at a fixed viewing distance (i.e. optical infinity) to determine the location and precision of the preferred retinal loci (PRLs)-the part of the functional retina that fulfills the role of a pseudo-fovea. Fixation stability recorded with these instruments has been related to performance on visual tasks at shorter viewing distances, although it is not known how viewing distance affects the precision of ocular motor control in these patients. This study examined whether viewing distance affects fixation stability during binocular and monocular viewing. METHODS: Thirty patients with bilateral AMD, 10 older controls, and 10 younger controls participated. Each patient's better eye (BE) and worse eye (WE) were identified based on their visual acuity. Fixation stability was recorded with a binocular eye-tracker at three viewing distances (40 cm, 1 m, 6 m) in binocular and monocular (with BE and with WE) viewing conditions. Fixation stability was evaluated with a bivariate contour ellipse area. RESULTS: For the AMD group, there was no effect of viewing distance on fixation stability, regardless of viewing condition (i.e. binocular, monocular with the BE or with the WE). The same pattern of results was found for the two control groups. CONCLUSIONS: Viewing distance does not affect fixation stability in patients with AMD. Fixation stability data recorded with an instrument at a fixed viewing distance can be related to performance on visual tasks at other viewing distances.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it