Evaluating visuomotor coordination in children with amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past research has reported deficits on reaching and grasping tasks in adults with amblyopia and degraded stereoacuity, but less is known about visuomotor deficits in children-specifically, for complex tasks that require movement sequencing. This study therefore compared the visuomotor performance in 21 children with abnormal binocular vision (patient group) due to amblyopia and/or strabismus to that of 236 children with normal binocular vision development (control group) ages 5-14 years. Visual acuity, stereoacuity, and hand-movement kinematics on a bead-threading task were assessed. The patient group showed significantly longer durations than the control group on grasp, thread, and total movement durations. Both groups of participants were then split into immature (ages 5-9 years) and mature (ages 10-14 years) groups based on the maturation age for these parameters in control children. Grasp duration was longer in both mature and immature patient groups; thread and total movement durations were longer in the mature patient group only. Grasp duration was the most disrupted kinematic parameter in children with disrupted binocular vision due to amblyopia and/or strabismus, regardless of age. The level of stereoacuity loss rather than the depth of visual acuity loss was associated with the severity of visuomotor deficits.
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".