Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40590782›Full record

Trial reportJournal of vision2025

Accommodative responses stimulated from the Maddox components of vergence in participants with normal binocular vision.

Sebastian N Fine, Thomas Rutkowski, Elio M Santos, Suril Gohel, Farzin Hajebrahimi, Mitchell Scheiman, Tara L Alvarez

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of vision, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03593031 (Functional Neural Mechanism of Vision Therapy for Patients With Convergence Insufficiency), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03593031 nacompletednot on this map

Functional Neural Mechanism of Vision Therapy for Patients With Convergence Insufficiency

TypeinterventionalSponsorNew Jersey Institute of TechnologyRan2014 to 2020Enrolled100ConditionsConvergence InsufficiencyArmsOffice Based Vergence and Accommodative Therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sebastian N FineDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA.
Thomas RutkowskiDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA.
Elio M SantosDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA.
Suril GohelDepartment of Health Informatics, Rutgers University School of Health Professions, Newark, NJ, USA.
Farzin HajebrahimiDepartment of Health Informatics, Rutgers University School of Health Professions, Newark, NJ, USA.
Mitchell ScheimanPennsylvania College of Optometry, Salus at Drexel University, Elkins Park, PA, USA.
Tara L AlvarezDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ, USA.

Funding

Functional Mechanisms of Neural Control in Convergence InsufficiencyR01EY023261 · NEI · NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI ALVAREZ, TARA LYNN · 2014 to 2025
$4.9M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY023261
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the interplay of responses to stimulated accommodative blur (B), disparity (D), proximal (P), and diminished blur (-b), disparity (-d), and proximal (-p) cueing within binocularly normal participants is important for comparisons to patient populations. Recordings from 31 participants enrolled in the Convergence Insufficiency Neuro-mechanism Adult Population Study (NCT03593031) were collected. After artifact removal, analyses were performed on 20 BDP, 22 BD(-p), 27 BP(-d), 29 DP(-b), 24 B(-dp), 31 D(-bp), and 29 P(-bd) participant-level response datasets. Group-level statistics were assessed to evaluate the main effect of cue conditions on peak velocity (diopters/second) and final amplitude (diopters). Peak velocity assesses the preprogrammed portion of accommodation, whereas final amplitude assesses the feedback portion of accommodation. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were used to determine cue-to-cue significance. Significant main effects were found for final amplitude and peak velocity metrics (p < 0.05), indicating differences across cue conditions. Responses evoked by blur and disparity were comparable to those responses with all cues (BDP) for both far-to-near and near-to-far transitions. Responses evoked by blur or disparity cues elicited a reduced accommodative response, as indicated by peak velocity and final amplitude, compared to responses from blur and disparity cues. Blur and disparity cues can stimulate accommodative responses through the convergence accommodative/convergence crosslink. Results support significant contributions from blur and disparity cueing to accommodative responses compared with the proximal cue. This research forms the foundation for comparing accommodative responses in individuals with binocular vision dysfunctions.

Indexed as

Accommodation, OcularConvergence, OcularVision, BinocularVision DisparityAdultCuesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID40590782
PMCPMC12227023

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.