Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38899959›Full record

ReviewJournal of vision2024

Review: Binocular double vision in the presence of visual field loss.

Eli Peli, Jae-Hyun Jung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of vision, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Visual Impairment and Driving in Older Adults: A Narrative Review.Current treatment options in neurology · 2026
    Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Eli PeliSchepens Eye Research Institute of Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jae-Hyun JungSchepens Eye Research Institute of Massachusetts Eye and Ear, Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

VISION RESEARCHP30EY003790 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI Patricia Ann D'Amore · 1985 to 2026
$25.5M
VISUAL FIELD EXPANSION THROUGH INNOVATIVE MULTIPLEXING PRISM DESIGNR01EY023385 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI PELI, ELI · 2013 to 2024
$7.2M
Monocular Visual Confusion for Field ExpansionR01EY031777 · NEI · SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI PELI, ELI · 2020 to 2023
$1.7M
NEI NIH HHS P30 EY003790NEI NIH HHS R01 EY023385NEI NIH HHS R01 EY031777
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Binocular double vision in strabismus is marked by diplopia (seeing the same object in two different directions) and visual confusion (seeing two different objects in the same direction). In strabismus with full visual field, the diplopia coexists with visual confusion across most of the binocular field. With visual field loss, or with use of partial prism segments for field expansion, the two phenomena may be separable. This separability is the focus of this review and offers new insights into binocular function. We show that confusion is necessary but is not sufficient for field expansion. Diplopia plays no role in field expansion but is necessary for clinical testing of strabismus, making such testing difficult in field loss conditions with confusion without diplopia. The roles of the three-dimensional structure of the real world and the dynamic of eye movements within that structure are considered as well. Suppression of one eye's partial view under binocular vision that develops in early-onset (childhood) strabismus is assumed to be a sensory adaption to diplopia. This assumption can be tested using the separation of diplopia and confusion.

Indexed as

DiplopiaStrabismusVision, BinocularVisual FieldsEye MovementsHumans

Identifiers

PMID38899959
PMCPMC11193068

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.