Slow binocular reading during rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) in children with amblyopia and the role of fixation instability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Children with amblyopia read slowly when viewing with both eyes. • Reading is slow even when the need for inter-word eye movements is removed. • Slow reading in amblyopia is associated with poor fellow eye fixation stability. Children with amblyopia read slower than their peers during binocular viewing. Ocular motor dysfunction typical of amblyopia may cause slow reading. It is unclear whether this is due to fixation instability or increased forward saccades. We examined whether removing the requirement of inter-word saccades helps children with amblyopia read at a similar rate as controls using a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task. We also assessed whether reading rate was related to fixation instability. Children with amblyopia (n = 32) and control (n = 30) children ages 8–12 years silently read sentences presented in RSVP (single word presentation at screen center) during binocular viewing. Exposure time per sentence changed with a 2 − down 1 − up staircase to obtain reading speed thresholds (log words/minute [WPM]). Eye movements were tracked to determine fellow eye (FE) and amblyopic eye (AE) fixation stability during RSVP reading. Children with amblyopia read slower than controls (2.75 ± 0.47 log WPM vs 3.06 ± 0.40 log WPM), and had increased AE fixation instability (0.21 ± 0.39 log deg 2 vs − 0.20 ± 0.18 log deg 2 ) and increased FE fixation instability (−0.03 ± 0.34 log deg 2 vs − 0.20 ± 0.15 log deg 2 ) during RSVP reading. Reading rate in amblyopic children with good FE stability (n = 11) did not differ from controls and was faster than those with poor FE stability (n = 21). Children with poor FE stability read slower than controls. Removing the need for inter-word saccades (i.e., RSVP reading) did not help children with amblyopia read at control speeds. Our data support FE fixation instability as a source of slow reading in amblyopia.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".