Trial reportJournal of vision2025
Accommodative responses stimulated from the Maddox components of vergence in participants with normal binocular vision.
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.
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.
Functional Neural Mechanism of Vision Therapy for Patients With Convergence Insufficiency
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.