ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2026
Abnormal Binocular Rivalry Dynamics in Amblyopia: A Potential Diagnostic Marker.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: Amblyopia is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by monocular deficits and interocular suppression. Binocular rivalry, where perception alternates between dissimilar images, is a powerful tool to probe this suppression. However, the dynamics of sustained binocular rivalry remain poorly characterized in amblyopia. This study aimed to comprehensively characterize these dynamics in individuals with amblyopia compared to visually-normal controls. Methods: Eleven adults with amblyopia and eight controls continuously reported their perception during a binocular rivalry task through keypresses. We used custom calibration to ensure stable fusion. Key metrics included complete reversal rates (transitions between differing monocular percepts), incomplete reversal rates (transitions to mixed percepts and back), and eye preference indexes. Results: Although most participants with amblyopia experienced sustained rivalry, their dynamics were severely abnormal. Complete reversal rates were profoundly reduced, and more time was spent seeing the fellow eye percept. Distinct signatures emerged for amblyopia subtypes, shedding light on underlying mechanisms: anisometropic patients exhibited higher incomplete reversal rates than strabismic/mixed patients, suggesting higher binocular noise levels in anisometropic amblyopia. Combining these metrics enabled perfect separation between groups (control, anisometropic, or strabismic/mixed), even with just four minutes of data, in our adult sample. Conclusions: Binocular rivalry dynamics are fundamentally altered in amblyopia, revealing disrupted reversal mechanisms. These dynamics distinguish amblyopia from normal vision and differentiate between etiologies. The perfect separation achieved suggests that quantifying rivalry dynamics holds significant potential as a rapid noninvasive diagnostic tool.
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.