Disconjugacy of Eye Movements during Attempted Fixation: A Sufficient Marker for Amblyopia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate whether detection of disconjugacy of eye movements during attempted fixation, or interocular position instability, may serve as a single sensitive test for amblyopia. PATIENTS/METHODS AND MATERIAL: Binocular eye movements were recorded at 500 Hz using the EyeLink 1000 eye tracker (SR Research Ltd., Kanata, Ontario, Canada) and analyzed using EyeLink software and Matlab (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). Eight subjects (four amblyopes, one successfully treated amblyope, and three non-amblyopes: 7 - 44 years) were asked to fixate on a stationary cross subtending 0.5° at 57 cm. Interocular position instability was quantified by calculating the minimum area bivariate contour ellipse (BCEA) encompassing 68% of the difference between right and left eye position points during 20-second viewing epochs. For statistical analysis, BCEA values, as well as visual acuity and stereoacuity, were normalized by base-10 logarithm transformation. RESULTS: The amblyopic subjects with persistent vision loss (one anisometropic, two strabismic, one deprivation; uncorrected visual acuity range 20/60 - 20/300, corrected stereoacuity range nil-400 arcsec) showed significantly higher interocular position instability (larger 68% BCEAs) than the non-amblyopic subjects (uncorrected visual acuity range 20/20 - 20/800, corrected stereoacuities of 20 arcsec) and the successfully treated strabismic amblyope (to the 20/20 level of visual acuity and 70 arcsec of stereoacuity) during binocular viewing trials; p < 0.01. Interocular position stability was strongly correlated with stereoacuity (in that better stereoacuity was associated with lower 68% BCEAs; r = 0.95), but not with visual acuity (r = 0.20). CONCLUSION: Interocular position instability appears to differentiate amblyopic from non-amblyopic subjects and appears to improve after successful treatment. Interocular position instability may therefore prove to be a single sensitive test for the presence of amblyopia. As a difference measure, it is inherently less susceptible to head motion and calibration error, as well as to conjugate eye motion, and as such is expected to be somewhat immune to latent nystagmus. Interocular position instability may also be useful to guide treatment, especially in preverbal children, and to assess the efficacy of novel treatments. Further research is required to establish optimal interocular position instability thresholds and to determine how specific this measure is to 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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".