ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Ebbinghaus Illusion Distortions in Amblyopia: Impairments of Visual Size Processing and Interocular Integration.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The perceived size of an object can be manipulated by its surroundings. In the current study, we wanted to investigate whether amblyopic patients have normal object size perception and how their perception is affected by abnormal interocular interactions. Methods: Sixteen adult amblyopes and 16 controls participated in this experiment. We measured the Ebbinghaus illusion magnitude with large and small inducers under one binocular, two monocular, and four dichoptic viewing configurations. Exploratory factor analysis was used to extract common structures and underlying mechanisms in different conditions. Results: The mean Ebbinghaus illusion magnitude in amblyopia was smaller with large inducers (F1,30 = 5.874, P = 0.021) and larger with small inducers (F1,30 = 5.814, P = 0.022) than in controls. For the small-inducer geometry, the interaction effect between groups and viewing configurations (F6,180 = 4.472, P < 0.001) was significant. Compared to the control population, the exploratory factor analysis in amblyopia extracted three more factors mainly accounting for dichoptic viewing configurations. Conclusions: Amblyopes tended to overestimate the object size relative to controls in the Ebbinghaus illusion, thereby amplifying it in the small-inducer geometry and diminishing it in the large-inducer geometry. Our factor analysis revealed a limited interocular transfer of the Ebbinghaus illusion in amblyopia, suggesting a defective mechanism in local binocular integration circuitry.
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.