Oculomotor Training for Poor Saccades Improves Functional Vision Scores and Neurobehavioral Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if participants with saccadic dysfunction improved after participating in a standardized oculomotor training program. A secondary objective was to accurately quantify change in saccades after training using eye tracking technology. A third objective was to examine patients' neurobehavioral symptoms before and after oculomotor training using the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory (NSI). DESIGN: A prospective study involving treatment and control group pre-post intervention design. SETTING: Data were collected in eye clinics with a standardized eye tracking equipment setup. PARTICIPANTS: Participants in the bottom 25th percentile for saccadic eye movements (N=92; intervention=46, control=46) who were currently asymptomatic of specific disorder. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to the control or intervention group. The intervention group engaged in 10 minutes of oculomotor training daily for 5 days. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The ratio of the peak saccadic velocity over its average velocity (the Q ratio), saccadic targeting, and NSI. RESULTS: =.021). Additionally, there was a significant reduction in all neurobehavioral factors on the NSI in the intervention group, specifically the affective and cognitive factors relating to poor saccades. CONCLUSIONS: For this population, oculomotor training (Q ratio and saccade accuracy) resulted improved saccadic metrics and a significant reduction in overall symptoms as shown on the NSI. Future participants reported improved symptoms pre- and postintervention. Further research is needed to understand saccadic performance and gaze stability during specific tasks (such as reading).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".