Regional Extent of Peripheral Suppression in Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Previously, we have mapped amblyopic eye suppression within the central 20° of the visual field and observed a gradient of suppression that is strongest in central vision and weakens with increasing eccentricity. In this study, using a large dichoptic display, we extend our novel suppression mapping approach further into the periphery (from 20°-60°) to assess whether suppression continues to decline with eccentricity or plateaus. Methods: Sixteen participants with amblyopia (10 with strabismus, 6 with anisometropia without strabismus; mean age: 37.9 ± 11 years) and six normal observers (mean age: 28.3 ± 5 years) took part. The visual stimulus (60° diameter), viewed from 57 cm, was composed of four concentric annuli (5° radius) with alternate contrast polarities starting from an eccentricity of 10°. Each annulus was divided into eight sectors subtending 45° of visual angle. Participants adjusted the contrast of a single sector presented to the fellow eye to match the perceived contrast of the remaining stimulus elements that were presented to the amblyopic eye. A matching contrast that was lower in the fellow eye than the amblyopic eye indicated suppression. Results: Patients with strabismus exhibited significantly stronger interocular suppression than controls across all eccentricities (P = 0.01). Patients with anisometropia did not differ from controls (P = 0.58). Suppression varied significantly with eccentricity (P = 0.005) but this effect did not differ between patient groups (P = 0.217). Conclusions: In amblyopia, suppression is present beyond the central 10° in patients with strabismus. Suppression becomes weaker at greater eccentricities and this may enable peripheral fusion that could be used by binocular treatment methods.
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".