Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34040063›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

A covered eye fails to follow an object moving in depth.

Arvind Chandna, Jeremy Badler, Devashish Singh, Scott Watamaniuk, Stephen Heinen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 53% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Arvind ChandnaThe Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA. arvind@ski.org.
Jeremy BadlerDepartment of Sensory and Sensorimotor Systems, Max Planck Institute of Biological Cybernetics, Tübingen, Germany.
Devashish SinghThe Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Scott WatamaniukThe Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Stephen HeinenThe Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute · USMax Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics · DEWright State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To clearly view approaching objects, the eyes rotate inward (vergence), and the intraocular lenses focus (accommodation). Current ocular control models assume both eyes are driven by unitary vergence and unitary accommodation commands that causally interact. The models typically describe discrete gaze shifts to non-accommodative targets performed under laboratory conditions. We probe these unitary signals using a physical stimulus moving in depth on the midline while recording vergence and accommodation simultaneously from both eyes in normal observers. Using monocular viewing, retinal disparity is removed, leaving only monocular cues for interpreting the object's motion in depth. The viewing eye always followed the target's motion. However, the occluded eye did not follow the target, and surprisingly, rotated out of phase with it. In contrast, accommodation in both eyes was synchronized with the target under monocular viewing. The results challenge existing unitary vergence command theories, and causal accommodation-vergence linkage.

Indexed as

Accommodation, OcularAdultDepth PerceptionEye MovementsFemaleHumansMaleMotion PerceptionVision, MonocularYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID34040063
PMCPMC8154899
OpenAlexW3165736229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.