ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Regaining Visual Acuity Does Not Restore Motion Extrapolation Deficits in Amblyopia.
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: We previously reported that amblyopes exhibit deficits in motion extrapolation and in correcting for overextrapolation. In this study, we explored whether these motion deficits remain when normal visual acuity is restored after successful standard treatment in adults with former unilateral amblyopia. Methods: Eleven clinically treated adult amblyopes and 11 control subjects participated in the study. We assessed visual motion processing functions by using two motion illusion paradigms: the flash-lag effect (FLE) and the flash-grab effect (FGE). We measured the monocular FLE and FGE magnitudes for all participants. Two contrast conditions (0.2 and 1) of FLE and two spatial frequencies (2 and 8 cycles) of FGE were tested. Results: Compared to controls, treated amblyopes still exhibited a smaller FLE magnitude at the 0.2 contrast (F1,20 = 5.69, P = 0.027) in both the former fellow eye (FFE) and the former amblyopic eye (FAE). Treated amblyopes had a larger FGE magnitude than controls (P ≤ 0.008) in both eyes, and the FGE magnitude of FAE was larger than that of FFE (F1,20 = 15.9, P = 0.003). The FLE and FGE magnitudes were significantly correlated in most conditions in controls (P ≤ 0.035) but not in treated amblyopia (P ≥ 0.201). Conclusions: We observed a smaller FLE and a larger FGE in treated amblyopes, suggesting that the motion extrapolation and the correction for extrapolation remain impaired in their brain. These may be due to processing delays and defective temporal integration from residual abnormal cortical connections in the amblyopic visual system.
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.