Safety Evaluation in Healthy Adults of Motion-Based Virtual Reality Dichoptic Training for Pediatric Patients With Amblyopia: Prospective Intervention Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Amblyopia, a unilateral or bilateral visual disorder, affects up to 5% of the general population and is a leading cause of childhood visual impairment. Current treatments, such as patching therapy, aim to improve amblyopia by temporarily occluding the unaffected eye, thereby promoting the use of the amblyopic eye. However, adherence to patch therapy can be challenging, as the forced use of the amblyopic eye can be stressful for children. Moreover, despite improvements in visual acuity by patch therapy, children with amblyopia often face difficulties with hand-eye coordination; therefore, a treatment that reduces stress for them while simultaneously improving hand-eye coordination could address the limitations of existing amblyopia therapies. Objective: This study investigated the safety of our motion-based virtual reality (VR) dichoptic training app using Japanese Kendama in healthy adult participants, which was designed to improve hand-eye coordination in pediatric patients with amblyopia. Methods: This prospective intervention study involved 20 healthy young adults (median age 21, IQR 21-28.3 y), including 16 women. The participants played the motion-based VR dichoptic training app for 30 minutes and then completed a subjective symptom questionnaire, which comprised 9 questions (Q1-Q9) with each item scored on a 4-point scale, except Q9, which was assessed on a binary scale. Q1-Q3 focused on subjective eye symptoms, Q4-Q7 evaluated physical and mental discomfort, Q8 assessed the degree of VR session-induced arm fatigue, and Q9 assessed the severity of visually induced motion sickness. Results: No significant differences were observed in the reported ocular symptoms before and after the VR session, including eye fatigue (mean before vs after: 1.25, SD 0.94 points vs 1.35, SD 0.85 points), blurred vision (0.55, SD 0.50 points vs 0.80, SD 0.40 points), eye dryness (0.95, SD 0.74 points vs 1.25, SD 0.83 points), and visually induced motion sickness (0.00, SD 0.00 points vs 0.05, SD 0.22 points). These results suggested that the motion-based VR dichoptic training did not induce significant adverse ocular effects. Conclusions: The motion-based VR dichoptic training app demonstrated minimal adverse ocular effects in healthy adult participants, suggesting that it is safe for use in this population. These findings demonstrate the feasibility and good tolerability of this VR-based intervention in healthy adults. Further studies, including clinical studies in adult and pediatric patients with amblyopia, are warranted to evaluate its applicability and therapeutic effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".