Monovision: a Review of the Scientific Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed the scientific literature on monovision to compare the visual performance of monovision patients with that of others wearing more traditional prescriptions. We found that visual performance of monovision patients was comparable to that of control patients wearing a balanced binocular correction, provided that reading adds were not greater than about +2.5 D, that illumination was photopic, and that stimuli were presented at supra‐threshold levels. Under these conditions, monovision patients were satisfied with their perceptual experience and performed within 2 to 6% of balanced binocular control patients on a range of occupational tasks. It is noteworthy that monovision patients had relatively more difficulty with acuity‐based tasks than with tasks demanding good depth perception. With reading adds over +2.5 D, at low levels of illumination, or with near‐threshold level stimuli, visual performance of monovision patients was reduced compared with controls. Subjectively, under low levels of illumination, monovision patients experienced problems with glare and halos around point sources of light.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".