Eye-brain connection: an altered profile of spatial attention in myopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Refractive errors represent an important cause of visual impairment, impacting the quality of vision in billions of people across the globe. Degraded visual input may cause individuals with refractive errors to deploy greater attentional resources during visual tasks. We tested the hypothesis that myopia alters the pattern of visual attention. Methods: Twenty participants (10 near-emmetropes) performed an acuity discrimination task at random visual field locations (eccentricity range: 1-10°; spacing: 1°; polar coordinates of 0°, 90°, 180°or 270°) under conditions of neutral attention (no information on the stimulus position) and focused attention (target presentation in a single meridian), while fully optically corrected. The spatial distribution of attention-related modulation was estimated by the ratio of performance between the focused and neutral conditions across spatial eccentricities using acuity resolution (primary outcome) and reaction times (RT), as measures of attention. Results: Use of linear mixed models revealed that the enhancing effect of attention follows a cubic spatial profile for acuity and RT, indicating a finite attentional window in myopes and emmetropes with a peak eccentricity at around 4°. Significant dependence of attention modulation on polar coordinate and refractive status was also identified (for both acuity and RT), with larger attention enhancement at the South position, compared to the North location, and lower attention efficiency in myopes, as compared to emmetropes across the visual field. Our modeling of attention-related modulation in acuity further indicated that myopes experience narrower attentional windows, suggesting a reallocation of cognitive resources. Conclusion: The study is the first, to our knowledge, to provide a detailed spatial profile of attention-related modulation linked to mild to regular myopia, highlighting a differential shape of the focus of attention with refractive status, which demonstrates a redistribution of attention with myopia. This revealed a link between myopia and visual attention, which requires further investigation.
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 | 0.000 | 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".