Increased saccadic latency in Amblyopia: Oculomotor and attentional factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amblyopia is a neurodevelopmental disorder of vision that arises from disrupted binocular vision during early childhood. Delayed initiation of saccadic eye movements is an established feature of amblyopia. The present study investigated whether oculomotor and/or attentional factors contribute to increased amblyopic eye saccadic latencies. Participants with normal vision (n = 10) and amblyopia (n = 10; 4 anisometropia, 6 strabismic/mixed) performed visually-guided saccades to targets presented via a mirror haploscope. Eye movements were recorded for both eyes even under monocular viewing conditions. In Experiment 1, we measured the latency, amplitude gain and peak velocity of saccades as targets were presented binocularly, or monocularly. Saccadic latencies were significantly longer for both eyes when targets were presented to only the amblyopic eye compared to all other conditions. Saccade gain and main sequence rate constants were similar across groups for all viewing conditions. In Experiment 2, we tested the hypothesis that shifts of overt attention may be deficient when viewing with the amblyopic eye. We presented the fixation target to one eye and the subsequent peripheral target (saccadic error signal) to the other eye. Shifting saccadic targets between the eyes expedited saccadic latencies irrespective of which eye viewed the target in the amblyopia group. These findings indicate that oculomotor factors related to saccade generation are unlikely to be responsible for amblyopic eye saccadic latency delays. We propose that an impairment in the ability to disengage attention from a fixation target and orient to a peripheral target when both targets are seen by the amblyopic eye may contribute to increased saccadic latency.
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".