ArticleJournal of translational medicine2026
First-order basis of second-order temporal loss in amblyopia.
Article in Journal of translational medicine, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAmblyopia is a neurodevelopmental visual disorder characterized by monocular visual impairment due to abnormal binocular experience in early childhood, with first-order (luminance-defined) and second-order (contrast-defined) processing deficits. While first-order temporal perception deficits in amblyopia are well-documented, the nature of second-order temporal deficits remains unclear, particularly whether they stem from intrinsic extrastriate dysfunction or secondary effects of first-order spatial impairments. This study investigated temporal perception deficits in anisometropic amblyopia by comparing first-order and second-order processing under balanced and unbalanced carrier conditions.
methodsEight anisometropic amblyopes (18–21 years) and ten normal controls (18–23 years) participated. We measured: (1) first-order temporal perception (luminance-modulated gratings) and (2) second-order temporal perception (contrast-modulated noise carriers) under two conditions (identical carriers, contrast = 1.0; balanced carriers, contrast calibrated to equate first-order spatial input between amblyopic eyes [AEs] and fellow eyes [FEs]). A carrier detection task assessed first-order carrier sensitivity. All tasks used a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) paradigm with a two-down/one-up staircase procedure to measure thresholds (70.7% accuracy). Statistical analyses included repeated-measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc LSD tests, comparing AEs, FEs, and control eyes (CEs).
resultsOur experiment demonstrated that amblyopic eyes (AEs) exhibited impaired first-order temporal perception and carrier detection, while their second-order temporal deficits disappeared (AEs/FEs ratio = 1.18 ± 0.28, p > 0.1) when first-order spatial inputs, the carriers, were individually balanced. Fellow eyes (FEs) performed comparably to control eyes (CEs) across all tasks, suggesting preserved temporal and spatial processing in non-amblyopic eyes.
conclusionsThese findings indicate that second-order temporal deficits may primarily reflect impaired first-order spatial processing rather than intrinsic extrastriate dysfunction. The study highlights the hierarchical nature of amblyopic visual deficits, where early sensory losses cascade into downstream processing impairments, and emphasizes the importance of distinguishing primary spatial deficits from secondary temporal consequences in both research and clinical assessment of amblyopia.
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.