ArticleScientific reports2024
Impaired visual attention and numerical processing in children with anisometropic amblyopia and after visual acuity recovery.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Integrating Multi-Task Eye Tracking and Interpretable Machine Learning for High-Accuracy Screening of Amblyopia in Pediatric Populations.Journal of eye movement research · 2026Article
- Regaining Visual Acuity Does Not Restore Motion Extrapolation Deficits in Amblyopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Amblyopia affects more than visual acuity. To compare the performances of visual selective attention and numerical processing in children with anisometropic amblyopia and children with normal vision, and investigate whether performance would be improved after visual acuity recovery, we performed 3 visual attention tasks (identifying number location task, numerical comparison task, and specific number comparison task) in children with anisometropic amblyopia, children who had recovered from anisometropic amblyopia, and children with normal vision in 6-8 and 9-11 years groups. The numerical processing ability, visual selective attention, and numerical distance effect were assessed by their reaction time of different tasks. The amblyopia group showed significantly worse visual selective attention than control group. However, the recovered amblyopic group showed worse visual selective attention compared to control group only in 9-11 years group. Children aged 6-8 had a greater numerical distance effect than 9-11 in control group, while there were no significant differences between different age groups in amblyopia and recovered amblyopic children. These findings suggest children with anisometropic amblyopia have not only defective visual selective attention but also different age-related patterns of numerical distance effect. Moreover, the improvement of visual selective attention after early stage of visual acuity recovery is better at younger age.
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.