Repetitive visual cortex transcranial random noise stimulation in adults with amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that five daily sessions of visual cortex transcranial random noise stimulation would improve contrast sensitivity, crowded and uncrowded visual acuity in adults with amblyopia. Nineteen adults with amblyopia (44.2 ± 14.9 years, 10 female) were randomly allocated to active or sham tRNS of the visual cortex (active, n = 9; sham, n = 10). Sixteen participants completed the study (n = 8 per group). tRNS was delivered for 25 min across five consecutive days. Monocular contrast sensitivity, uncrowded and crowded visual acuity were measured before, during, 5 min and 30 min post stimulation on each day. Active tRNS significantly improved contrast sensitivity and uncrowded visual acuity for both amblyopic and fellow eyes whereas sham stimulation had no effect. An analysis of the day by day effects revealed large within session improvements on day 1 for the active group that waned across subsequent days. No long-lasting (multi-day) improvements were observed for contrast sensitivity, however a long-lasting improvement in amblyopic eye uncrowded visual acuity was observed for the active group. This improvement remained at 28 day follow up. However, between-group differences in baseline uncrowded visual acuity complicate the interpretation of this effect. No effect of tRNS was observed for amblyopic eye crowded visual acuity. In agreement with previous non-invasive brain stimulation studies using different techniques, tRNS induced short-term contrast sensitivity improvements in adult amblyopic eyes, however, repeated sessions of tRNS did not lead to enhanced or long-lasting effects for the majority of outcome measures.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".