ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2010
The sensitivity of the 2- to 4-month-old human infant accommodation system.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accommodative and Vergence Responses to a Moving Stimulus in Concussion.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2024Article
- The Performance of Spot Photoscreener in 6 to 10 Weeks Infants in China: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of ophthalmology · 2024Article
- How Do Most Young Moderate Hyperopes Avoid Strabismus?Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2023Article
- Language Experience Is Associated with Infants' Visual Attention to Speakers.Brain sciences · 2020Article
- The Importance of the Interaction Between Ocular Motor Function and Vision During Human Infancy.Annual review of vision science · 2019Review
- Sensitivity of vergence responses of 5- to 10-week-old human infants.Journal of vision · 2016Article
- Why do only some hyperopes become strabismic?Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2013Review
- Pupil responses to near visual demand during human visual development.Journal of vision · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe goal of this study was to compare objectively the sensitivity of the accommodation system in human infants and adults under binocular and monocular viewing conditions.
methodsFull-term infants from 2 to 4 months of age and pre-presbyopic adults were presented with a high-contrast cartoon stimulus moving sinusoidally in diopters around a mean position of 2 D (50 cm). Three stimulus amplitudes were used in one trial (0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 D), with unpredictable stimulus motion during each amplitude change. Eccentric photorefraction was used to record accommodative responses at 25 Hz. The stimulus was made monocular by placing an infrared filter over the right eye, to block visible light but pass the near-infrared wavelength of the photorefractor and allow responses to be recorded from both eyes.
resultsFourier analysis was used to determine the accommodative response at the frequency of the stimulus. Significant signal-to-noise ratios indicated that, on average, the 2- to 4-month-old infants generated an accommodative response to at least the 0.75 D amplitude monocular stimulus and the 0.75 and 0.50 D binocular stimuli. Adults responded to the 0.25 D amplitude both binocularly and monocularly.
conclusionsIn infants 2 to 4 months of age, the developing visual system compensates for small changes in defocus relative to the typical amounts of hyperopic refractive error found at that age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.