Contribution of binocular visual function and its impairment by Bangerter foils to the performance of a precision reaching, grasping and placing task in healthy adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Upper limb movement execution is affected in patients with vision impairments resulting from ocular pathologies or binocular anomalies. Deficits in motor performance have been correlated with reduced contrast sensitivity, phoria, and stereoacuity. Aim To evaluate the effects of increased straylight induced by Bangerter foils on binocular visual function and examine the corresponding impact on eye-hand kinematics during a high precision reaching, grasping and placement task (i.e., bead threading). Methods Twenty-one healthy participants, aged 21–41 years, participated in this experimental study. Visual function assessment included visual acuity (VA), contrast sensitivity (CS), stereoacuity (SA), phoria, and fusional vergences (FV). Vision was impaired experimentally using Bangerter foils 0.4. Participants performed a bead threading task under three randomized viewing conditions: binocular baseline (BB; normal vision), binocular viewing with a foil over the dominant eye (FDE), and foils over both eyes (FBE). Eye and hand movements were recorded using an eye tracker and a motion capture camera. Results Visual functions (VA, CS, and stereoacuity) were impaired when viewing with the Bangerter foils. Pairwise comparison between viewing conditions confirmed statistically significant differences between BB, FDE and FBE for mid to high spatial frequencies (6, 12 and 18 cycles per degree; p < 0.05). Break points for positive and negative fusional reserves were impaired when interocular differences increased (i.e., FDE condition). The impairment did not have any impact on phoria. Results from the kinematic analysis revealed threading duration was prolonged using Bangerter foils on both eyes (FBE condition). In contrast to the hypothesis, visual deficit due to foils did not affect any other kinematic measures. However, results from mixed model analyses revealed that individual differences in phoria and fusional vergence had the most significant influence on reaching performance. Specifically, a larger exophoria magnitude was associated with longer reach duration, lower peak velocity and prolonged total time to complete the task ( p < 0.05). Conclusion Inducing short-term deterioration through the alteration of contrast sensitivity at high spatial frequencies without a clinical deterioration in stereopsis does not have a significant impact on precision grasping and placing movements, in a repetitive manual task. Notably, this study demonstrated that phoria impacts the execution of reaching movements.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".