ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024
Visual Tracking in Amblyopia: A Continuous Psychophysical Approach.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Binocular Interaction in Anisometropic Amblyopia Revealed by Classification Image.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Effect of Individualized and Adaptive Vision Training versus 6 hours of Patching in Children with Residual Amblyopia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to explore the underlying mechanisms of the observed visuomotor deficit in amblyopia. Methods: Twenty-four amblyopic (25.8 ± 3.8 years; 15 males) and 22 normal participants (25.8 ± 2.1 years; 8 males) took part in the study. The participants were instructed to continuously track a randomly moving Gaussian target on a computer screen using a mouse. In experiment 1, the participants performed the tracking task at six different target sizes. In experiments 2 and 3, they were asked to track a target with the contrast adjusted to individual's threshold. The tracking performance was represented by the kernel function calculated as the cross-correlation between the target and mouse displacements. The peak, latency, and width of the kernel were extracted and compared between the two groups. Results: In experiment 1, target size had a significant effect on the kernel peak (F(1.649, 46.170) = 200.958, P = 4.420 × 10-22). At the smallest target size, the peak in the amblyopic group was significantly lower than that in the normal group (0.089 ± 0.023 vs. 0.107 ± 0.020, t(28) = -2.390, P = 0.024) and correlated with the contrast sensitivity function (r = 0.739, P = 0.002) in the amblyopic eyes. In experiments 2 and 3, with equally visible stimuli, there were still differences in the kernel between the two groups (all Ps < 0.05). Conclusions: When stimulus visibility was compensated, amblyopic participants still showed significantly poorer tracking performance.
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.