ArticleScientific reports2021
Predictability of sinusoidally moving stimuli does not improve the accuracy of the accommodative response.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Seeing the future: Predictive control in neural models of ocular accommodation.Journal of vision · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous research work suggests that predictable target motion such as sinusoidal movement can be anticipated by the visual system, thereby improving the accommodative response. The validity of predictable motion for studying human dynamic accommodation is sometimes put into question. The aim of this work was to assess the effect of anticipation along with learning (and motivation, etc.) and fatigue (and boredom, loss of attention, etc.) on dynamic accommodation experiments from a practical perspective. Specifically, changes in amplitude and temporal phase lag were estimated within and between trials as 9 adult observers were instructed to focus on a stimulus that oscillated sinusoidally towards and away from the eye at specific temporal frequencies. On average, amplitude decreased whereas phase increased within trials. No evidence of anticipation or learning was observed either within or between trials. Fatigue consistently dominated anticipation and learning within the course of each trial. Even if the eye is equipped by a prediction operator as it is often assumed, fatigue confounds the results from dynamic accommodation experiments more than anticipation or learning.
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.