ライフサイエンスコーパス: binocular

1 elocity differences (IOVD), are specifically binocular.

2 e in the degree to which neurons become more binocular.

3 sessed using a linear regression model, with binocular 10-2 VF sensitivity as the independent variabl

4 te NEI VFQ-25 score was associated with both binocular 24-2 (beta = 1.95; 95% CI, 0.47-3.43; P = .01)

5 Standardized binocular 24-2 and 10-2 VF sensitivities were calculated

6 We used a binocular adaptive optics vision simulator to determine

7 ates the enhancement of plasticity by LRx in binocular adult mice (Murase et al., 2017).

8 Strabismus is a prevalent impairment of binocular alignment that is associated with a spectrum o

9 almost as gracefully as subjects with normal binocular alignment.

10 ased disparity tuning was most pronounced in binocular and ipsilaterally biased neurons, which are th

11 , reducing facilitation of responses of both binocular and monocular dLGN inputs during binocular vie

12 for baseline VA, the difference between the binocular and patching groups was -2.7 letters (95% CI:

13 on judgments in environments with monocular, binocular, and ambiguous depth.

14 d that lateral striate cortex (V1) is highly binocular, and that input from the ipsilateral eye to th

15 Such drift responses are binocular, and they are most effectively elicited with l

16 he CISS on 9 to 18 year old children without binocular anomalies.

17 The binocular approximations of binocular visual function we

18 score was correlated significantly with all binocular approximations of VF, with r values ranging fr

19 nocular VA showed stronger correlations with binocular approximations, with r values ranging from 0.6

20 < 0.05 for all) than correlations with all 7 binocular approximations.

21 more closely with reported functioning than binocular approximations.

22 s the prey, the stimulus enters the central, binocular area, and seemingly expands in size.

23 nal prospective study 63 patients undergoing binocular cataract surgery were divided into four groups

24 nificant change from baseline in measures of binocular CDVA (P = .89), refractive error (P = .36), bi

25 R session was followed by post-VR testing of binocular CDVA, refractive error, binocular eye alignmen

26 e role of callosal connections in generating binocular cells.

27 , vision builds a new and more sharply tuned binocular circuit in layer 2/3 by cellular exchange and

28 is sharpening is achieved by dismantling the binocular circuit present at critical period onset and b

29 The developmental assembly of this binocular circuit, especially the transcallosal pathway,

30 in binocular integration beginning in early binocular circuits in dLGN, whereas spatial acuity defic

31 cells converged from both eyes, revealing a binocular combination mode in which functionally special

32 ly, we showed that, in amblyopic cortex, the binocular combination of signals is altered.

33 mposition during CM-vs-CM viewing are due to binocular combination, rather than mutual inhibition.

34 out optical correction, and in monocular and binocular conditions; one condition was measured twice t

35 diate (60 cm) and near (33 cm) distances and binocular contrast sensitivity.

36 AE remained "lazy" in high frequency domain, binocular contrast summation, and interocular phase comb

37 organization of topographic maps or disrupt binocular convergence in the superior colliculus.SIGNIFI

38 Minimum binocular corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) was 20

39 elopmental window resulting in maturation of binocular cortical cells and depth perception.

40 rom monocular, pre-cortical neurons to their binocular, cortical counterparts.

41 Zebrafish larvae can perceive binocular cues during prey hunting but have exclusively

42 amounts of non-stereoscopic cues, including binocular cues in the Circles that can be used to deceiv

43 , and 4 of 80 patients (5.0%) with JIA-U had binocular decreased VA <6/12.

44 Binocular defocus curve showed peaks with best visual ac

45 A) intermediate visual acuities - as well as binocular defocus curves.

46 und that monocular deprivation (MD), but not binocular deprivation (BD), increased dendritic spine el

47 ctile simultaneity after either monocular or binocular deprivation.

48 A novel static and dynamic binocular depth detection task, capable of assessing man

49 to treatment for 8 weeks with the dichoptic binocular Dig Rush iPad game (prescribed for 1 hour per

50 4 or 8 weeks of treatment with the dichoptic binocular Dig Rush iPad game.

51 st common type of strabismus associated with binocular diplopia due to glaucoma surgery was hypertrop

52 ferences between the images in our two eyes, binocular disparities, to generate depth perception?

53 tion of frontoparallel stimulus features and binocular disparities.

54 diminishing performance for small and large binocular disparities.

55 multiple visual cues, two of which, changing binocular disparity (CD) and inter-ocular velocity diffe

56 o investigate the effects of two depth cues, binocular disparity and relative size.

57 In primates, binocular disparity is processed in multiple areas of th

58 Investigating how binocular disparity is processed in the mouse visual sys

59 D) can be cued by high-resolution changes in binocular disparity over time (CD), and low-resolution i

60 primates, MD also disrupts the emergence of binocular disparity selectivity, a cue resulting from in

61 nly on relative judgments of depth (relative binocular disparity) between objects, rather than judgme

62 in macaque: (1) color versus luminance, (2) binocular disparity, (3) luminance contrast sensitivity,

63 ant visual processing affects how we process binocular disparity, a key component of human depth perc

64 precise depth information, such as that from binocular disparity, may improve estimates of the retina

65 muli signaling near or far depths defined by binocular disparity, relative motion, and their combinat

66 Binocular disparity, the difference between the two eyes

67 ral (RL) areas were found to be sensitive to binocular disparity.

68 ns are selectively and strongly modulated by binocular disparity.

69 the uncorrected condition (P = .004) whereas binocular distance VA was better in the distance-correct

70 atched visual tuning properties in remaining binocular dLGN afferents.

71 e critical period leads to a chronic loss of binocular dLGN inputs while sparing response strength an

72 Visual deprivation through binocular enucleation induces a synapse-specific and dep

73 Our study uncovers the fundamental role of binocular experience in the formation of distinct areas

74 ies of visual cortical neurons are shaped by binocular experience, while others are resistant.

75 CDVA (P = .89), refractive error (P = .36), binocular eye alignment (P = .90), or stereoacuity (P =

76 testing of binocular CDVA, refractive error, binocular eye alignment (strabismus), stereoacuity, and

77 Our results show that rapid binocular eye movements are adapted to the statistics of

78 the first study to show quantitatively that binocular eye movements conform to 3D scene statistics,

79 When we examined their binocular eye movements, we found that, unlike primates,

80 n the visual environment to enable efficient binocular eye movements.

81 Binocular facilitation within V1's input layers tended t

82 ss the retina and overlapping with the mouse binocular field of view.

83 ormal VFV underwent MRI during monocular and binocular fixation of a centered, near target.

84 s a reduction in visual acuity and disrupted binocular function, amblyopia affects many low- and high

85 Five of 8 patients could sustain binocular fusion in the scanner.

86 al compartment significantly co-relaxed when binocular fusion was attained from monocular target fixa

87 nd RL in response to dichoptically presented binocular gratings, as well as random dot correlograms (

88 nificant improvement in visual acuity in the binocular group versus standard patching standard treatm

89 For the binocular group, adherence data from the iPad indicated

90 In the binocular group, treatment adherence data from the iPad

91 edictability and efficacy were higher in the binocular group, whereas safety was better in the monocu

92 independence for all distances was higher in binocular group.

93 a type of neural network trained on natural binocular images can learn parameters that match key pro

94 Our research shows that RLE with binocular implantation of a trifocal diffractive IOL in

95 to the preoperative status, especially after binocular implantation.

96 All participants were tested with binocular infrared video goggles with built-in laser tar

97 Therefore, early binocular input is necessary to develop normal neural su

98 rons are consistent with linear summation of binocular inputs followed by an output nonlinearity.

99 s, and policy planners should consider using binocular instead of uniocular measures of VA in patient

100 riod MD produces long-lasting disruptions in binocular integration beginning in early binocular circu

101 We characterized binocular integration in mice because tools exist in the

102 ng the developmental critical period impairs binocular integration in mouse primary visual cortex.

103 al period in development chronically impairs binocular integration in thalamic inputs to primary visu

104 We found that binocular integration is a prominent feature of mouse vi

105 As binocular integration primarily occurs in V1 [14, 15], t

106 ur model fits revealed different patterns of binocular interaction along the cortical hierarchy, part

107 ur model fits revealed different patterns of binocular interaction along the visual cortical hierarch

108 h cortical area indicated that both forms of binocular interaction shared a common gain control nonli

109 Data with IM terms revealed another form of binocular interaction, compared with self-terms.

110 Here we studied binocular interactions in human visual cortex, including

111 we describe experiments in which we studied binocular interactions in macaques with experimentally i

112 olinergic system is implicated in modulating binocular interactions in the human visual cortex.

113 We measured binocular interactions in visual cortex of anesthetized

114 We demonstrated that both forms of binocular interactions share a common gain control mecha

115 to relate physiological limits on plausible binocular interactions to separation between retinal loc

116 dichoptic stimuli, we measured two forms of binocular interactions: one is associated with the indiv

117 Binocular intermediate VA was significantly better in th

118 signed to treatment for 16 weeks of either a binocular iPad game prescribed for 1 hour per day (n = 4

119 rs, improvement in amblyopic eye VA with the binocular iPad game used in this study was not found to

120 twork in simple analytical form and derive a binocular likelihood model that provides a unified accou

121 of the prey-capture motor program following binocular localization of prey, without requiring ipsila

122 ildren were examined for trachoma using 2.5x binocular loupe and graded based on the WHO simplified g

123 Here, we show that binocular matching is completely blocked by monocular de

124 ere, in mice of both sexes, we show that the binocular matching process is completely blocked by mono

125 veal ocular dominance as a key driver of the binocular matching process, and suggest a model whereby

126 gnitive stimulation, is sufficient to rescue binocular matching to the level seen in unmanipulated mi

127 try (SAP) mean deviation (MD) and integrated binocular mean sensitivity (MS) values between classes w

128 Binocular mechanisms for visual processing are thought t

129 hese results suggest that monocular, and not binocular, mechanisms set the limit of spatial acuity in

130 the letter score difference between groups (binocular minus control) was -0.3 (95% CI: -2.2 to 1.5,

131 visual response, suggesting that the bulk of binocular modulation involves cortical inhibition.

132 This, predominantly suppressive, binocular modulation of LGN responses might suggest that

133 Furthermore, MD impairs binocular modulation, reducing facilitation of responses

134 multivariate model, each 1-dB lower baseline binocular MS was associated with 34% higher odds of disa

135 In parallel, new binocular neurons are established by conversion of well-

136 contain most of the monocular neurons while binocular neurons dominate the layers above and below.

137 ring an early postnatal critical period when binocular neurons in the primary visual cortex sharpen t

138 y) of thousands of neurons reveals that most binocular neurons present in layer 2/3 at critical perio

139 Binocular neurons that are well matched in spatial frequ

140 eurons respond to stimulation of either eye (binocular neurons).

141 Here we demonstrate that binocular non-stereoscopic cues can also be used to pass

142 ity of 94% for detection of RAPD whereas the binocular OCT had a sensitivity of 74% and specificity o

143 n automated pupillometry examination using a binocular OCT system that presents a stimulus and simult

144 The diagnostic accuracy of the RAPDx and binocular OCT was 88% (95% confidence interval 80%-94%)

145 Binocular OCT-derived pupil parameters had excellent tes

146 ffects specific aspects of vision, including binocular overlap, optical sensitivity, and dorsofrontal

147 holoptic (dorsally fused) eyes with limited binocular overlap.

148 ess effective as the same contrast in pFE in binocular phase combination.

149 that at the peak of the critical period for binocular plasticity, acetylcholine released from the ba

150 l processing of eye-specific visual input in binocular primary visual cortex.

151 er, our understanding of its precise role in binocular processes is currently lacking.

152 al period prevents the normal development of binocular receptive fields by impairing the maturation o

153 therefore about 25% larger in area than the binocular region in Long Evans rats.

154 Thus, the binocular region in V1 of albino rats includes lateral s

155 ndritic spine elimination over 3 days in the binocular region of 4-week-old adolescent mice.

156 hes in register with ipsilateral ODCs in the binocular region of V1 (Laing et al., 2015).

157 of GABAergic chandelier cells (ChCs) in the binocular region of V1.

158 no rats input from both eyes intermix in the binocular region, without segregating into ODCs, and tha

159 Within the binocular representation of V1, the average patch spatia

160 aligned representation resembling the early binocular representation through shifts in cellular orie

161 However, it is also possible that binocular response modulation in the LGN arises indirect

162 luate the neural circuits that might mediate binocular response modulation in the LGN.

163 This organization maximizes the binocular retinotopic match needed for depth perception

164 nd stimulus polarity, and then maximizes the binocular retinotopic match needed for depth perception

165 Here, I describe a no-cognition approach to binocular rivalry and outline how this approach can help

166 Here we use binocular rivalry as a probe of interocular dynamics to

167 Although VA, stereoacuity and binocular rivalry at low spatial frequency in treated am

168 s viewed true and simulated frequency-tagged binocular rivalry displays while steady-state visually e

169 causal link between GABAergic inhibition and binocular rivalry in humans, complementing classic model

170 triking alteration in the neural dynamics of binocular rivalry in individuals with autism.

171 Binocular rivalry is a classic experimental tool to prob

172 evidence that perceptual suppression during binocular rivalry is causally modulated by the inhibitor

173 ting inhibitory signaling in the dynamics of binocular rivalry is currently lacking.

174 sychiatric conditions, such as autism, where binocular rivalry is posited as a behavioral marker of d

175 ed two crossover experimental sessions where binocular rivalry measurements were obtained before and

176 rivalry, including the three hallmarks: (i) binocular rivalry requires attention; (ii) various perce

177 d signs of periodicity in the time course of binocular rivalry, a widely studied form of multistable

178 dynamic properties of internal noise during binocular rivalry, and by extension the stochastic proce

179 y in humans, complementing classic models of binocular rivalry, and have implications for our underst

180 reported rates of a basic visual phenomenon, binocular rivalry, in autism [1, 2].

181 The latter phenomenon, called binocular rivalry, in particular caught the attention of

182 ion of the current computational theories of binocular rivalry, in which the role of attention is ign

183 ion attenuates perceptual suppression during binocular rivalry, reducing the overall rate of interocu

184 timulus, as it does for visual illusions and binocular rivalry, the opportunity arises to localize wh

185 cientific models-one on neural mechanisms of binocular rivalry, the other on the pathophysiology of b

186 , they can either fuse together or engage in binocular rivalry, where each eye's view is seen exclusi

187 This is particularly apparent in binocular rivalry, where perception of competing stimuli

188 entify neural correlates of consciousness is binocular rivalry, wherein a constant visual stimulus ev

189 oposed conceptual framework for conventional binocular rivalry, which includes asymmetric feedback, v

190 a classic illusion of perceptual awareness: binocular rivalry.

191 Here, we provide a computational model of binocular rivalry.

192 These findings, combined, suggest that binocular signals arise at an earlier processing stage t

193 of 10 prism diopters or less and evidence of binocular single vision).

194 iated at an earlier monocular, rather than a binocular stage.

195 One example is depth perception via binocular stereopsis in the praying mantis, a predatory

196 Binocular stereopsis requires the convergence of visual

197 development, contralateral, ipsilateral, or binocular stimulation each yield well-organized modular

198 view the extant literature on the effects of binocular stimulation on LGN spiking responses, highligh

199 ere significantly reduced, or suppressed, to binocular stimulation.

200 im initiation when prey is positioned in the binocular strike zone.

201 nformation at the pre-motor level depends on binocular summation in demoiselles.

202 , average eye, better or worse location, and binocular summation or pointwise binocular summation.

203 cation, and binocular summation or pointwise binocular summation.

204 es ranging from 0.65 (worse-eye VA) to 0.80 (binocular summation; P < 0.0001 for all).

205 ormalization mechanisms resulting from early binocular suppression can explain much of these contrast

206 gularities were correlated with the level of binocular suppression in these V2 neurons and with the s

207 e noisy spiking is linked to a high level of binocular suppression in visual cortex during developmen

208 In contrast to facilitation, binocular suppression occurred several milliseconds foll

209 emained almost unchanged after monocular and binocular surgery.

210 he transcallosal pathway may prime a nascent binocular territory for subsequent experience-driven tun

211 We found limited benefit in binocular testing of VA in the clinical setting as a mea

212 Binocular tests of visual function (Esterman VF score, b

213 of this review of the published literature, binocular therapy cannot be recommended as a replacement

214 hat failed to show a visual improvement from binocular therapy compared with standard treatments were

215 ression and stereopsis of those treated with binocular therapy.

216 e interval [CI]: 0.1-2.6; 0.026 logMAR) with binocular treatment and by 1.7 (2-sided 95% CI: 0.4-3.0;

217 is no level I evidence to support the use of binocular treatment as a substitute for current therapie

218 ar whether the minimal treatment response to binocular treatment was owing to poor treatment adherenc

219 determine the potential benefits of proposed binocular treatments in the future.

220 63) revealed more promising results than the binocular treatments studied in the level I and II studi

221 These improvements in binocular tuning in layer 2/3 are not inherited from lay

222 linder -0.34 D +/- 0.38; FineVision Micro F, binocular UDVA, 0.01 logMAR +/- 0.05; monocular CDVA, 0.

223 0.06; binocular UNVA, 0.05 logMAR +/- 0.08; binocular UIVA, -0.05 logMAR +/- 0.12; spherical equival

224 an (+/- standard deviation) acuity: AT Lisa, binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA), -0.

225 Binocular uncorrected intermediate (UIVA) and near visua

226 cuity (UNVA) at 40 cm, 0.05 logMAR +/- 0.08; binocular uncorrected intermediate visual acuity (UIVA)

227 visual acuity (CDVA), 0.02 logMAR +/- 0.06; binocular uncorrected near visual acuity (UNVA) at 40 cm

228 Binocular uncorrected reading acuity was 0.10logMAR at 4

229 Mean binocular uncorrected VA at distance, intermediate (67 c

230 hieved in mesopic and photopic conditions in binocular uncorrected visual acuity and contrast sensiti

231 went: monocular defocus curve; monocular and binocular uncorrected visual acuity in photopic and meso

232 Mean binocular uncorrected visual acuity in photopic conditio

233 Mesopic binocular uncorrected visual acuity values were similar

234 0.05; monocular CDVA, 0.03 logMAR +/- 0.06; binocular UNVA, 0.05 logMAR +/- 0.08; binocular UIVA, -0

235 (VA) <20/32 and >20/100, while controls had binocular VA >20/32.

236 e compared the impact of distance presenting binocular VA and uniocular VA in the better-seeing (bett

237 lthough every 2-line increase (worsening) in binocular VA and uniocular VA was associated independent

238 respectively) or worse-eye VA (compared with binocular VA beta estimates, -38.9%, -58.1%, and -57.5%

239 sing either the better-eye VA (compared with binocular VA beta-estimates, -27.8%, -19.4%, and -24.2%

240 Binocular VA showed stronger correlations with binocular

241 Presenting uniocular VA and binocular VA were assessed using a logarithm of the mini

242 tests of visual function (Esterman VF score, binocular VA) were added to the CIGTS protocol 3 years i

243 termine the independent associations between binocular VA, better-eye VA, and worse-eye VA and the ou

244 f vision loss on VRQoL indices compared with binocular VA.

245 Binocular VF defects were quantified with the DSpecs tes

246 Twenty patients with known binocular VF defects were tested using static test image

247 ed from monocular Humphrey VFs to estimate a binocular VF index (OU-VFI).

248 The diagnostic binocular VF testing with the DSpecs was comparable to t

249 ontrast, we found some benefit in performing binocular VF testing, because the results correlated mor

250 Binocular VFs were derived from monocular Humphrey VFs t

251 During binocular viewing, visual inputs from the two eyes inter

252 h binocular and monocular dLGN inputs during binocular viewing.

253 e two eyes on cortical mechanisms underlying binocular vision [1, 2], and experience's impact on this

254 rategy for stereopsis.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Binocular vision allows us to derive depth information b

255 developing visual cortex can cause impaired binocular vision and amblyopia.

256 contralaterally (cRGCs) to the brain permits binocular vision and depth perception.

257 l mechanisms in the thalamus in establishing binocular vision and may have critical implications for

258 isual system.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Abnormal binocular vision and reduced acuity are hallmarks of amb

259 viewed four objects from one location, with binocular vision and small head movements then, without

260 ings indicate that the development of normal binocular vision and spatial acuity depend upon experien

261 Refractive error and binocular vision assessment, integrating accommodative p

262 Binocular vision depends on retinal ganglion cell (RGC)

263 line with findings on a critical period for binocular vision development.

264 Disrupting binocular vision during a developmental critical period

265 Together, these results reveal that balanced binocular vision during development is essential for dri

266 on stereoacuity in individuals with no known binocular vision impairments.

267 Binocular vision in amblyopes is often disrupted by inte

268 of the neural deficits caused by mismatched binocular vision in early childhood has predominantly fo

269 and the need for future exploration of near binocular vision status as a potential driver of astheno

270 utational model of the development of active binocular vision to fill this gap.

271 llected from twenty participants with normal binocular vision while performing vergence eye movements

272 In mammals with binocular vision, integration of the left and right visu

273 st corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of logMAR, binocular vision, ocular health and management outcomes.

274 In mammals with binocular vision, retinal ganglion cell (RGC) axons from

275 amework for understanding the development of binocular vision.

276 wo channels (ears) being much weaker than in binocular vision.

277 nd its existence suggests the possibility of binocular vision.

278 g MD and their recovery after restoration of binocular vision.

279 dissect the underlying neural circuitry for binocular vision.

280 is a requirement to evaluate the quality of binocular vision.

281 yes, likely a key step in the development of binocular vision.

282 contralateral eye-dominated V1 and deficient binocular vision.

283 of life (VRQoL) is assessed optimally using binocular visual acuity (VA), uniocular VA remains the p

284 Binocular visual acuity was 20/25 or better for distance

285 thalamic input from the deprived eye to the binocular visual cortex and accelerated short-term depre

286 Furthermore, we find that neurons in binocular visual cortex that respond only to the contral

287 omatic, contextually sensitive feedback from binocular visual cortex underlying figure-ground modulat

288 ifferent maps exist at vision onset and that binocular visual experience aligns them into a single un

289 Amblyopia results from abnormal binocular visual experience and impacts the structure an

290 sing mean sensitivity (MS) of the integrated binocular visual field.

291 Interocular grouping (IOG) is a binocular visual function that can arise during multi-st

292 The binocular approximations of binocular visual function were better or worse eye, aver

293 To test whether binocular visual input drives the differentiation of vis

294 needed for vision to drive the emergence of binocular visual responses in the mouse primary visual c

295 directly as the LGN also receives input from binocular visual structures.

296 ndings support the notion that our foveated, binocular visual system has been moulded by the statisti

297 esterase inhibitor (AChEI) donepezil, on the binocular visual system.

298 uronal tracer WGA-HRP, are intermixed in the binocular zone of albinos, without segregating into ODCs

299 of sparsely labeled layer 2/3 neurons in the binocular zone of mouse primary visual cortex.

300 The binocular zone of primary visual cortex (V1b) undergoes