ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Development and preliminary evaluation of a ciliary muscle-oriented motor imagery script for primary school children: a school-based cluster randomized controlled trial.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myopia in children is occurring earlier and progressing faster, while existing interventions such as outdoor activity and device-based visual training are often difficult to implement consistently in school settings. Motor imagery (MI), as a low-burden cognitive approach, may offer a complementary pathway for visual-function support. However, ciliary muscle-oriented MI scripts specifically designed for children remain underdeveloped. Purpose: This study aimed to develop a ciliary muscle-oriented MI script based on the PETTLEP model for primary school children and to compare two training arrangements: G1 (staged imagery group: 8 weeks of general imagery followed by 8 weeks of specific imagery; Methods: A school-based cluster randomized design was used. A total of 156 children aged 10-11 years from one primary school in Suzhou were assigned by intact class to either G1 or G2. Visual outcomes, including uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), kinetic visual acuity (KVA), accommodative amplitude (AMP), and binocular accommodative facility (BAF), were assessed at baseline (T1) and post-intervention (T3). Imagery ability was assessed using the Sport Imagery Questionnaire (SIQ; cognitive-general imagery [CG] and cognitive-specific imagery [CS] dimensions) at T1, T2, and T3. Results: Both groups improved over time on several outcomes. No between-group difference was found for UDVA at T3. After Benjamini-Hochberg correction, KVA was the only visual outcome showing a significant adjusted between-group difference at T3; BAF was not significant at T3, and AMP showed only a borderline trend. Significant Time × Group interactions were found for KVA, BAF, and CG. G1 scored higher than G2 on CG at both T2 and T3. In CS, both groups improved over time; G2 scored higher at T2, but no between-group difference was found at T3. However, because the study included only four classes in total (two per condition) and the class-level ICC for post-intervention KVA was 0.366, the KVA finding should be interpreted as a hypothesis-generating class-level observation rather than a reliable training effect. Conclusion: This study developed and preliminarily evaluated a ciliary muscle-oriented MI script under structured school-based conditions. The clearest between-group evidence was observed for CG. Different imagery arrangements may be associated with different developmental patterns, but visual-function findings, particularly KVA, require cautious interpretation and replication in studies with more clusters and stronger control conditions.
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.