ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Multi-Feature Mapping of Distortions in Amblyopia With Localized Sampling.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurophysiological basis for visual distortions in amblyopia.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Review
- Rethinking perceptual distortions in amblyopia: toward a multi-feature, visual-field-wide perspective.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2026Article
- Letter Distortion Mapping in Amblyopia: Spatial Patterns, Stability, and Relationship to Visual Acuity.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate position, orientation, and spatial frequency (SF) distortions in amblyopia, their distribution across the visual field (VF), and their relationship with visual acuity (VA) loss. Methods: Twenty-one participants with amblyopia were tested using three tasks measuring distortions in position, orientation, and SF. Stimuli were presented on a 6 × 6 grid covering the central 5 degrees of the VF, with participants adjusting the fellow eye's perception to match the amblyopic eye. Distortion maps were created for each type, and correlations were analyzed within subjects (across their 3 distortion maps) and between subjects (comparing the same type of distortion maps across participants). Correlations with VA loss were also assessed. Results: The prevalence of distortion maps varied, with SF distortions being the most dominant (88.9%), followed by position distortions (66.7%), and orientation distortions being the least common (22.2%). Distortions extended beyond the fovea. Within subjects, spatial patterns of distortion showed no significant correlations across distortion types (P > 0.05), indicating their independence. Between subjects, no significant correlations were found for the same type of distortion map, suggesting individual variability. Additionally, VA differences were not significantly correlated with any distortion type, reinforcing the independence of VA from perceptual distortions. Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of assessing multiple distortion types to fully characterize perceptual deficits in amblyopia. The findings suggest that no single distortion type fully represents amblyopic spatial distortion, as each operates independently. Distortion mapping is essential for understanding, monitoring improvements, and accurately diagnosing amblyopia, as VA measurements alone fail to address these deficits comprehensively.
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.