Gait development in children with impaired binocularity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Coordination between the eyes and body is important for navigating the environment. Children with disrupted binocular vision from strabismus and amblyopia score lower for walking on a standardized test of motor ability (Kelly et al., 2018 IOVS). However, standardized tests do not assess gait kinematics during walking. Here, we investigated the development of gait kinematics during walking in children with impaired binocularity compared to controls. Methods: 9 children ages 7-13 years with impaired binocularity (stereoacuity, 3.0±0.8 log arcsecs) due to strabismus or amblyopia and an age-similar group of 18 controls were enrolled. Children walked the length of a GAITRite pressure-sensitive walkway and completed 3 conditions of varying complexity: 1) Straight Walk (W): walk on mat, 2) Isolated Target Walk (I): walk and step on two-dimensional targets, and 3) Distractor Target Walk (D): walk and step on two-dimensional targets while avoiding two-dimensional distractors. Gait kinematic outcomes were normalized velocity (leg lengths/second), step time (msecs), and accuracy (%) of stepping on targets or avoiding distractors. Results: Controls were faster during straight walk compared to the other two conditions (normalized velocity, W:1.49±0.23, I:1.42±0.24, D:1.38±0.25 leg lengths/sec; longer step time, W:508±52, I:522±48, D:525±51 msecs, ps≤0.011). Children with impaired binocularity showed the same pattern (normalized velocity, W:1.67±0.35, I:1.58±0.29, D:1.50±0.27 leg lengths/sec; step time, W:468±63, I:494±61, D:491±56 msecs, ps≤0.06). While there were no group differences for velocity or step time (all ps≥0.089), children with impaired binocularity were less accurate than controls when stepping on targets, especially when paired with distractors (90.0±12.5% vs 98.2±3.0%, p=0.015). Conclusions: Impaired binocularity in children did not influence walking speed but impacted accuracy, especially with a more complex task. Impaired binocularity early in life may impact gait by causing visual uncertainty as children walk or may result in the development of compensatory strategies that are less effective during navigation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".