Two Patterns of Interocular Delay Revealed by Spontaneous Motion-in-Depth Pulfrich Phenomenon in Amblyopes with Stereopsis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To assess interocular delays in amblyopes with stereopsis and to evaluate the relationship between interocular delays and the clinical characteristics. Methods: Twenty amblyopes with stereopsis (median, 400 arcseconds) and 20 controls with normal or corrected to normal visual acuity (≤0 logMAR) and normal stereopsis (≤60 arcseconds) participated. Using a rotating cylinder defined by horizontally moving Gabor patches, we produced a spontaneous Pulfrich phenomenon in order to determine the interocular delays, that is, the interocular phase difference at which ambiguous motion in plane was perceived. Two spatial frequencies-a low (0.95 cycles/degree [c/d]) and a medium (2.85 c/d) spatial frequency-were tested. Results: The absolute interocular delays of the amblyopic group was significantly longer than that of the controls at both low or medium spatial frequencies (P < 0.01). However, the interocular delays was not always in favor of the fellow eye: 35% of the amblyopes (7/20) showed a faster processing of the amblyopic eye than that of the fellow eye at 0.95 c/d and 29.5% (5/17) at 2.85 c/d. No significant correlation was found between interocular delays and the clinical characteristics (e.g., age, treatment history, stereoacuity, and magnitude of anisometropia) in this amblyopic cohort. Conclusions: The interocular delays in amblyopes with stereopsis might result from either a faster or slower processing of the amblyopic eye relative to the fellow eye. This work provides important additional information for binocular processing of dynamic visual stimuli in amblyopia. However, the special role between this form of interocular delays and patients' clinical characteristics remains unknown.
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".