ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2024
Gaze Scanning on Mid-Block Sidewalks by Pedestrians With Homonymous Hemianopia With or Without Spatial Neglect.
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.
- Automated Sidewalk Surface Detection Using Wearable Accelerometry and Deep Learning.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Pilot study of a pedestrian collision detection test for a multisite trial of field expansion devices for hemianopia.Optometry and vision science : official publication of the American Academy of Optometry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate gaze-scanning by pedestrians with homonymous hemianopia (HH) when walking on mid-block sidewalks. Methods: Pedestrians with right homonymous hemianopia (RHH), and left homonymous hemianopia (LHH) without and with left spatial neglect (LHSN) walked on city streets wearing a gaze-tracking system. Gaze points were obtained by combining head movement and eye-in-head movement. Mixed-effects regression models were used to compare horizontal gaze scan magnitudes and rates between the side of the hemi-field loss (BlindSide) and the seeing side (SeeingSide), among the three subject groups, and between mid-block walking and street crossing segments. Results: A total of 7021 gaze scans were obtained from 341 minutes of mid-block walking videos by 19 participants (6 with LHH, 7 with RHH, and 6 with LHSN). The average gaze magnitude and scanning rate in mid-block segments were significantly higher towards the BlindSide than the SeeingSide in LHH (magnitude larger by 1.9° (degrees), P = 0.006; scan rate higher by 4.2 scans/minute, P < 0.001) and RHH subjects (magnitude larger by 3.3°, P < 0.001; scan rate higher by 3.2 scans/minute, P = 0.002), but they were not significantly different in LHSN subjects. The scanning rate, in terms of scans/minute (mean, 95% confidence interval [CI]) was significantly lower in LHSN subjects (mean = 6.9, 95% CI = 5.6-8.7) than LHH (mean = 10.2, 95% CI = 8.0-13.1; P = 0.03) and RHH (mean = 11.1, 95% CI = 9.0-13.7; P = 0.007) subjects. Compared to street-crossings, the scan rate during the mid-block segments was lower by 3.5 scans/minute (P < 0.001) and the gaze magnitude was smaller by 3.8° (P < 0.001) over the 3 groups. Conclusions: Evidence of compensatory scanning suggests a proactive, top-down mechanism driving gaze in HH. The presence of spatial neglect (SN) appeared to negatively impact the top-down process.
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.