Central Visual Oscillopsia: Case Report and Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we present a patient with persistent central visual oscillopsia, review the literature on this condition, and report results from an experimental intervention using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. A 57-year-old man reported persistent visual oscillopsia after a traumatic brain injury suffered 20 years earlier. Symptoms were presumed to be of cortical origin given his normal eye movements, eye stability, and peripheral vestibular function. Furthermore, he reported oscillopsia with visual imagery during eye closure. Occipital lesions damaging white matter connections identified on magnetic resonance imaging were suspected to be the cause of his symptoms. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was applied to the left extrastriate visual motion area V5/MT, to bilateral V5/MT, and to bilateral striate visual area V1. The primary outcome measure was dynamic visual acuity. Secondary outcome measures were gaze stabilization testing and subjective improvement as noted by interviews of the patient. Gaze stabilization and dynamic visual acuity testing revealed no difference between pre- and post-intervention with repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. The patient reported symptomatic improvement in large-amplitude oscillations that persisted for at least 12 months, but stated that smaller-amplitude oscillations were unchanged. Pathologies associated with central oscillopsia in the literature include neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder, stroke, migraine without infarction, and psychological trauma. The patient's reported improvement in large- but not small-amplitude oscillopsia suggests that these symptoms may result from different neurophysiological mechanisms. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation did not result in clinically significant improvement, suggesting a need for other strategies to treat this condition.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".