ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Temporal Contour Integration Deficits in Children With Amblyopia.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. 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.
- Advances in behavioral vision training for the treatment of childhood amblyopia: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Contour integration, the process of combining local visual fragments into coherent paths or shapes, is essential for visual perception. Although prior research on amblyopia has focused primarily on spatial domain deficits in contour integration, this study investigates how amblyopia affects contour integration over time and examines the relationship between temporal contour integration deficits and visual functions. Methods: Nineteen amblyopic children (mean age, 10.9 ± 2.4 years; 17 anisometropic, 2 anisometropic/strabismic mixed) and 26 visually normal children (mean age, 10.5 ± 1.8 years) participated in this study. Temporal contour integration was assessed by measuring the accuracy of detecting tilted contour paths, formed by collinear Gabor elements with similar orientations, under slit-viewing conditions. Performance was evaluated for amblyopic eyes (AEs) and fellow eyes (FEs) at two spatial frequencies (1.5 cpd and 3 cpd). The slit width, orientation jitter of contour elements, and stimulus movement speed were systematically varied across separate runs. Visual acuity and Randot stereoacuity were assessed before testing. Results: AEs exhibited significant deficits in temporal contour processing compared with FEs. Specifically, AEs required larger slit widths to achieve performance levels comparable to FEs, with more severe amblyopia (i.e., worse AE visual acuity) necessitating even larger slit widths for temporal contour integration. Temporal contour integration deficits in AEs were most pronounced under conditions of complete Gabor collinearity or moderate stimulus movement speeds (6.4°/s). No significant differences were observed between FEs and control eyes. Notably, the temporal contour integration ability between the two eyes quantified as the AE/FE ratio of slit width thresholds showed no correlation with interocular acuity differences, stereoacuity, or spatial contour integration deficits. Conclusions: Amblyopic children demonstrate significant deficits in temporal contour integration in AEs, which seem to be independent of spatial contour integration deficits. The severity of these temporal deficits increases with worse AE visual acuity. These findings suggest that amblyopia is associated with temporal deficits in visual integration, in addition to the well-documented spatial deficits, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive understanding of amblyopic visual processing.
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.