Peripheral Binocular Imbalance in Anisometropic and Strabismic Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Individuals with amblyopia experience central vision deficits, including loss of visual acuity, binocular vision, and stereopsis. In this study, we examine the differences in peripheral binocular imbalance in children with anisometropic amblyopia, strabismic amblyopia, and typical binocular vision to determine if there are systematic patterns of deficits across the visual field. Methods: This prospective cohort study recruited 12 participants with anisometropic amblyopia, 10 with strabismic amblyopia, and 10 typically sighted controls (age range, 5-18 years). Binocular imbalance was tested at 0°, 4°, and 8° eccentricities (4 angular locations each) using band-pass filtered Auckland optotypes (5 cycles per optotype) dichoptically presented with differing contrast to each eye. The interocular contrast ratio was adjusted until the participant reported each optotype with equal frequency. Results: Participants with anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia had a more balanced contrast ratio, or decreased binocular imbalance, at 4° and 8° eccentricities as compared with central vision. Participants with strabismic amblyopia had significantly more binocular imbalance in the periphery as compared with individuals with anisometropic amblyopia or controls. A linear mixed effects model showed a main effect for strabismic amblyopia and eccentricity on binocular imbalance across the visual field. Conclusions: There is evidence of decreased binocularity deficits, or interocular suppression, in the periphery in anisometropic and strabismic amblyopia as compared with controls. Notably, those with strabismic amblyopia exhibited more significant peripheral binocular imbalance. These variations in binocularity across the visual field among different amblyopia subtypes may necessitate tailored approaches for dichoptic treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".