ArticleJournal of eye movement research2025
Binocular Advantage in Established Eye-Hand Coordination Tests in Young and Healthy Adults.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundEye-hand coordination (EHC) plays a critical role in daily activities and is affected by monocular vision impairment. This study evaluates existing EHC tests to detect performance decline under monocular conditions, supports the assessment and monitoring of vision rehabilitation, and quantifies the binocular advantage of each test.
methodsA total of 70 healthy sports students (aged 19-30 years) participated in four EHC tests: the Purdue Pegboard Test (PPT), Finger-Nose Test (FNT), Alternate Hand Wall Toss Test (AHWTT), and Loop-Wire Test (LWT). Each participant completed the tests under both binocular and monocular conditions in a randomized order, with assessments conducted by two independent raters. Performance differences, binocular advantage, effect sizes, and interrater reliability were analyzed.
resultsData from 66 participants were included in the final analysis. Significant performance differences between binocular and monocular conditions were observed for the LWT (
conclusionsThe findings support the inclusion of the LWT and AHWTT in clinical protocols to assess and assist individuals with monocular vision impairment, particularly following sudden uniocular vision loss. Future research should extend these findings to different age groups and clinically relevant populations.
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.