MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240825934 · doi:10.1167/11.11.410

Quantitative measurement of interocular suppression in children with amblyopia

2011· article· en· W4240825934 on OpenAlexaff
S. Narasimhan, Emily R. Harrison, Deborah Giaschi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereopsisContrast (vision)Visual acuityBinocular visionOptometryAudiologyAnisometropiaMedicineStereoscopic acuityBinocular rivalryOphthalmologyPsychologyVisual perceptionRefractive errorOpticsPerceptionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previously it has been shown that intensive training aimed at reducing interocular suppression leads to improvement in amblyopic eye acuity as well as binocular vision in adults with strabismic amblyopia (Hess et al., 2010). In the current study we explored the possibility of using this approach to measure interocular suppression in children with amblyopia. We compared children (8–12 years old) with unilateral anisometropic and/or strabismic amblyopia to age-matched control children with normal visual acuity and no ocular pathology. Visual acuity was measured using the Regan high contrast chart; stereopsis was evaluated using the Randot preschool and the Randot circles test. Motion coherence thresholds for left-right direction discrimination were determined using a binocular global motion stimulus presented with virtual reality goggles (eMagin). The proportion of signal dots among noise dots was varied with a staircase procedure. In dichoptic viewing, high contrast signal dots were presented to the amblyopic eye (one eye of control subjects) while low contrast noise dots were presented to the fellow eye (the other eye of control subjects) at the motion coherence threshold. The contrast of the noise dots was increased until performance reached chance levels. Higher contrast thresholds indicated less interocular suppression. Regardless of their stereo acuity, all children in the amblyopic group exhibited some degree of binocular function on the dichoptic motion task. The amount of interocular suppression was high in the strabismic group and low in the anisometropic group indicating that interocular suppression is more potent in strabismic than in anisometropic amblyopia (Harrad and Hess, 1992). We have shown that the Hess et al stimuli can be used to measure both interocular suppression and residual binocular function in children with amblyopia. Interocular suppression is an established mechanism for visual loss in strabismic amblyopia; our results suggest it is less of a problem in anisometropic 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207