Age-Related Deficits in Binocular Vision Are Associated With Poorer Inhibitory Control in Healthy Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A robust association between reduced visual acuity and cognitive function in older adults has been revealed in large population studies. The aim of this work was to assess the relation between stereoacuity, a key aspect of binocular vision, and inhibitory control, an important component of executive functions. Inhibition was tested using the antisaccade task in older adults with normal or reduced stereopsis (study 1), and in young adults with transiently reduced stereopsis (study 2). Older adults with reduced stereopsis made significantly more errors on the antisaccade task in comparison to those with normal stereopsis. Specifically, there was a significant correlation between stereoacuity and antisaccade errors (r = 0.27, p = 0.019). In contrast, there were no significant differences in antisaccade errors between the normal and reduced stereopsis conditions in the young group. Altogether, results suggest that the association between poorer stereopsis and lower inhibitory control in older adults might arise due to central nervous system impairment that affects the processing of binocular disparity and antisaccades. These results add to a growing body of literature, which highlights the interdependence of sensory and cognitive decline in older adults.
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) | 0.000 | 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".