Trial reportProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2014
Acuity-independent effects of visual deprivation on human visual cortex.
Trial report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2014. 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.
- Article
- Feature Counting Is Impaired When Shifting Attention Between the Eyes in Adults With Amblyopia.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Neural sources of letter and Vernier acuity.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Feature Counting Under Dichoptic Viewing in Anisometropic and Strabismic Amblyopia.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
- Detection of Amblyopia Using Sweep VEP Vernier and Grating Acuity.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2018Article
- Cortical sources of Vernier acuity in the human visual system: An EEG-source imaging study.Journal of vision · 2017Article
- Degraded attentional modulation of cortical neural populations in strabismic amblyopia.Journal of vision · 2016Article
- Space perception of strabismic observers in the real world environment.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Visual development depends on sensory input during an early developmental critical period. Deviation of the pointing direction of the two eyes (strabismus) or chronic optical blur (anisometropia) separately and together can disrupt the formation of normal binocular interactions and the development of spatial processing, leading to a loss of stereopsis and visual acuity known as amblyopia. To shed new light on how these two different forms of visual deprivation affect the development of visual cortex, we used event-related potentials (ERPs) to study the temporal evolution of visual responses in patients who had experienced either strabismus or anisometropia early in life. To make a specific statement about the locus of deprivation effects, we took advantage of a stimulation paradigm in which we could measure deprivation effects that arise either before or after a configuration-specific response to illusory contours (ICs). Extraction of ICs is known to first occur in extrastriate visual areas. Our ERP measurements indicate that deprivation via strabismus affects both the early part of the evoked response that occurs before ICs are formed as well as the later IC-selective response. Importantly, these effects are found in the normal-acuity nonamblyopic eyes of strabismic amblyopes and in both eyes of strabismic patients without amblyopia. The nonamblyopic eyes of anisometropic amblyopes, by contrast, are normal. Our results indicate that beyond the well-known effects of strabismus on the development of normal binocularity, it also affects the early stages of monocular feature processing in an acuity-independent fashion.
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.