Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41289276›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

The impact of convergence insufficiency on selective visual attention among university students.

Mohammed M Alnawmasi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Mohammed M AlnawmasiDepartment of Optometry, College of Applied Medical Sciences, Qassim University, Buraydah, Saudi Arabia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7433-3957

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Convergence insufficiency (CI) is a common binocular vision disorder that impairs near vision-related tasks and is associated with symptoms such as eye strain, headaches, and reading difficulties. This study examined the effect of CI on selective visual attention by comparing performance on a modified visual search task between patients with CI and visually normal controls. A total of 42 male university students participated, including 20 patients diagnosed with CI and 22 age-matched controls. Participants completed a computerized visual search task involving different levels of target-distractor similarity and number of distractors. Accuracy (percent correct) and reaction time (RT) were recorded across task conditions. Reaction time was significantly slower in the CI group across all task conditions (mean RT: 1.21 ± 0.15 s) compared to controls (mean RT: 0.97 ± 0.12 s; main effect of group: F(1,160) = 38.2, p < 0.0001), while accuracy did not significantly differ between groups (CI: 86.3% ± 5.7; controls: 87.1% ± 6.1; F(1,160) = 0.002, p = 0.97). Task difficulty significantly influenced both accuracy (F(3,160) = 37.9, p < 0.001) and reaction time (F(3,160) = 5.1, p = 0.002), but no interaction effects were observed. Moreover, linear regression revealed a significant positive correlation between CISS scores and reaction time within the CI group (R² = 0.30, p = 0.01), indicating that higher symptom severity was associated with greater cognitive processing delay. In conclusion, CI has a negative impact on processing speed but not on accuracy during attentionally demanding tasks. These findings have implications for academic performance and highlight the importance of considering visual processing speed in clinical assessments and interventions for CI.

Indexed as

AttentionOcular Motility DisordersStudentsVisual PerceptionAdolescentAdultCase-Control StudiesHumansMaleReaction TimeUniversitiesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41289276
PMCPMC12646433

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.