Orienting of covert attention by neutral and emotional gaze cues appears to be unaffected by mild to moderate amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amblyopia is a developmental disorder of vision associated with higher-order visual attention deficits. We explored whether amblyopia affects the orienting of covert spatial attention by measuring the magnitude of the gaze cueing effect from emotional faces. Gaze and emotion cues are key components of social attention. Participants with normal vision (n = 30), anisometropic (n = 7) or strabismic/mixed (n = 5) amblyopia performed a cued peripheral target detection task under monocular and binocular viewing conditions. The cue consisted of a centrally presented face with left or right gaze (50% validity to target location) and a fearful, happy, or neutral expression. The magnitude of spatial cueing was computed as the reaction time difference between congruent and incongruent trials for each expression. Fearful facial expressions oriented spatial attention significantly more than happy or neutral expressions. The magnitude of the gaze cueing effect in our cohort of mild-to-moderate amblyopia was comparable to that in normal vision and was not correlated with the severity of amblyopia. There were no statistical group or amblyopia subtype differences for reaction time in any viewing condition. These results place constraints on the range of attentional mechanisms affected by amblyopia and possibly suggest normal covert processing of emotional face stimuli in mild and moderate amblyopia.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".