Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33284309›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2020

We don't all look the same; detailed examination of peripheral looking strategies after simulated central vision loss.

Marcello Maniglia, Roshni Jogin, Kristina M Visscher, Aaron R Seitz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Marcello ManigliaDepartment of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Roshni JoginDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA.
Kristina M VisscherDepartment of Neurobiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Aaron R SeitzDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA.
University of California, Riverside · USUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Loss of central vision can be compensated for in part by increased use of peripheral vision. For example, patients with macular degeneration or those experiencing simulated central vision loss tend to develop eccentric viewing strategies for reading or other visual tasks. The factors driving this learning are still unclear and likely involve complex changes in oculomotor strategies that may differ among people and tasks. Although to date a number of studies have examined reliance on peripheral vision after simulated central vision loss, individual differences in developing peripheral viewing strategies and the extent to which they transfer to untrained tasks have received little attention. Here, we apply a recently published method of characterizing oculomotor strategies after central vision loss to understand the time course of changes in oculomotor strategies through training in 19 healthy individuals with a gaze-contingent display obstructing the central 10° of the visual field. After 10 days of training, we found mean improvements in saccadic re-referencing (the percentage of trials in which the first saccade placed the target outside the scotoma), latency of target acquisition (time interval between target presentation and a saccade putting the target outside the scotoma), and fixation stability. These results are consistent with participants developing compensatory oculomotor strategies as a result of training. However, we also observed substantial individual differences in the formation of eye movement strategies and the extent to which they transferred to an untrained task, likely reflecting both variations in learning rates and patterns of learning. This more complete characterization of peripheral looking strategies and how they change with training may help us understand individual differences in rehabilitation after central vision loss.

Indexed as

FemaleFixation, OcularHumansLearningMaleReadingSaccadesScotomaVisual AcuityVisual FieldsVisual PerceptionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33284309
PMCPMC7726591
OpenAlexW3113017182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.