Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amblyopia has effects on vision that extend from the processing of low-level visual features to higher level functions such as visual attention. In this narrative review, we focus on the impact of amblyopia on visual attention. A structured literature search revealed 28 articles reporting comparisons between amblyopia and normal vision control groups for a variety of visual attention tasks. Several of these articles also included neuroimaging measures. A review of these articles suggested that amblyopia does not affect behavioral performance of tasks with a low attentional load, such as cuing tasks, but deficits emerge for tasks with high demands on visual attention such as multiple object tracking. Deficits are not limited to the amblyopic eye but are also evident under fellow eye and binocular viewing conditions suggesting that abnormal early binocular visual experience can fundamentally alter the development of visual attention. Overall, the current literature suggests that amblyopia is associated with reduced visual attention resources. We raise the possibility that this attention resource deficit may be partially associated with an attentional demand for suppression of the amblyopic eye.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".