Innovative vision rehabilitation method for hemianopsia: Comparing pre- and post audio-luminous biofeedback training for ocular motility improving visual functions and quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Homonymous hemianopsia (HH) corresponds to vision loss in one hemi-field secondary to retro-chiasmal injury. Patients with HH experience difficulties in scanning and orientation in their environment. Near vision daily activities such as reading can also be impaired. There is an unmet need for standardized vision rehabilitation protocols for HH. We investigated the effectiveness of biofeedback training (BT), used for vision rehabilitation in patients with central vision loss, in individuals with HH. Methods: In this prospective pilot pre/post study, 12 participants, with HH consecutive to brain injury, performed 5 weekly BT sessions for 20 min each under supervision using the Macular Integrity Assessment microperimeter. BT consisted of relocation of the retinal locus 1-4° toward the blind hemi-field. Outcomes measured post-BT were paracentral retinal sensitivity, visual acuity (near vision), fixation stability, contrast sensitivity, reading speed, and visual functioning questionnaire. Statistical analysis was performed using Bayesian paired t-tests. Results: Paracentral retinal sensitivity significantly increased by 2.7 ± 0.9 dB in the treated eye in 9/11 of the participants. Significant improvements with medium-to-large effect size were observed for fixation stability (8/12 participants), contrast sensitivity (6/12 participants) and near vision visual acuity (10/12 participants). Reading speed increased by 32.5 ± 32.4 words per minute in 10/11 participants. Quality of vision scores improved significantly with large effect size for visual ability, visual information and mobility. Conclusion: BT led to encouraging improvements in visual functions and functional vision in individuals with HH. Further confirmation with larger trials is required.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".