ライフサイエンスコーパス: visual function

1 all classes of retinal neurons and restoring visual function.

2 o RGC axon degeneration and permanently lost visual function.

3 of cones was accompanied by improvements in visual function.

4 in both 2q4 and 2q8 arms and correlated with visual function.

5 ates optic axis clearance in preparation for visual function.

6 ength, structural vitreous density, PVD, and visual function.

7 f retinal deoxysphingolipids and compromised visual function.

8 rtex (V1) that play a key modulatory role on visual function.

9 ave already been lost and thereby to restore visual function.

10 is known about its potential consequences on visual function.

11 hy accompanied by significant alterations in visual function.

12 eads to progressive and irreversible loss of visual function.

13 uired for photoreceptor cell maintenance and visual function.

14 HDACi can rescue cone photoreceptor-mediated visual function.

15 al postnatal period when mice acquire mature visual function.

16 strocytes play a protective role, preserving visual function.

17 major influence on the development of proper visual function.

18 cell loss, overall leading to a reduction of visual function.

19 ith early disease and considerable remaining visual function.

20 possibility that ChT could be predictive of visual function.

21 lar phenotype that is associated with normal visual function.

22 obe than primary regions of sensorimotor and visual function.

23 this reactivity is beneficial or harmful for visual function.

24 ssion and identifying parameters that affect visual function.

25 hosphorylation for its phototransduction and visual function.

26 nocular tests or binocular approximations of visual function.

27 d in those with relatively preserved central visual function.

28 lpful for determining and predicting overall visual function.

29 try, which may be advantageous for restoring visual function.

30 genation to maintain cellular metabolism and visual function.

31 ensity and FAZ area appear to correlate with visual function.

32 liculus (SC) but not significant recovery of visual function.

33 Electroretinogram was used to evaluate visual function.

34 es to the experience-dependent regulation of visual function.

35 roglial engulfment of synapses and protected visual function.

36 ach sensory system might impact auditory and visual function.

37 formation of subretinal lesions and reduced visual function.

38 represents a clinical parameter relevant to visual function.

39 partial restoration of the pupil reflex and visual function.

40 in cone patterning and how it may relate to visual function.

41 is not responsible for the deterioration of visual function.

42 gnostic investigations for the assessment of visual function.

43 esions in each participant and the extent of visual function.

44 tabolic demands and age rapidly, undermining visual function.

45 ested for 6 different cone- and rod-mediated visual functions.

46 e emerging as increasingly popular models of visual functions.

47 ematic study on both monocular and binocular visual functions.

48 cycling of a brain network evolved for other visual functions.

49 ivity, and near-normal levels of retinal and visual functions.

50 g spectral information for non-image forming visual functions.

51 e ocular surface, but on quality of life and visual functioning.

52 means of approximating a patient's reported visual functioning.

53 Important secondary outcomes were subjective visual function (25-item National Eye Institute Visual F

54 xyflavone hydrate, significantly rescued dye visual function ( 58 fold increase in OKR, p < 0.001, 3

55 e Local Eye (4.68 [6.62] vs 3.07 [5.60]) and Visual Function (8.44 [11.45] vs 4.42 [8.94]; P < .05) S

56 atistical significance for the evaluation of visual function (91.2% to 96.1%, P < .02) and target int

57 a accommodative IOL effectively restores the visual function, accommodation, and contrast sensitivity

58 s of PRCD from the retina results in reduced visual function accompanied by slow rod photoreceptor de

59 tive remodeling, ganglion cell survival, and visual function after experimental glaucoma and nerve cr

60 tissues, can neuroprotect RGCs and preserve visual function after severe, intraocular pressure (IOP)

61 patients with visual loss improved to normal visual function after surgery at follow-up and orbital p

62 kB antagonist ANA-12 blocked HDACi rescue of visual function and associated Akt phosphorylation.

63 s demonstrate the relationship between basic visual function and batting performance.

64 -learning algorithm should help the study of visual function and behavioural plasticity in infants.

65 so contributes to RPE cell death and loss of visual function and could affect the pathology of dry AM

66 Changes in visual function and imaging/anatomic parameters were eva

67 um treatment partially rescued inner-retinal visual function and increased retinal thickness.

68 These processes drive visual function and influence behavioral preferences.

69 subgroup of patients present with reasonable visual function and long-term survival of photoreceptors

70 ects from their backgrounds is a fundamental visual function and one that is particularly effective w

71 of daily living (e.g., driving), maintaining visual function and perception (e.g., depth perception),

72 Second eye cataract surgery improves visual function and quality of life well beyond levels a

73 To determine the relationship between visual function and quality of life, education, mental h

74 , GA often causes considerable compromise of visual function and quality of life.

75 st eye versus second eye cataract surgery on visual function and quality of life.

76 design of a prospective clinical study using visual function and retinal structure as outcome paramet

77 inas and the effect of its downregulation on visual function and retinal transcriptome.

78 rithm and a Rasch-refined approach producing visual function and socioemotional subscale scores.

79 orrelated with performance-based measures of visual function and subjective assessment of vision-rela

80 he hippocampus and thalamus, (2) with poorer visual function and with higher dementia risk scores in

81 To assess the effect of adalimumab on the visual functioning and quality of life in patients with

82 ble predictions about their consequences for visual functions and encoding mechanisms.

83 implant the device in the patient, comparing visual functions and high-resolution oculography before

84 ocular retinoid levels concomitant with low visual function, and a rapid disorganization of RPE cell

85 Cognitive function, executive function, visual function, and motor function were assessed at 4.5

86 ntenance that incorporated age, preoperative visual function, and RNFL thickness demonstrated C-stati

87 for retinal lipidome membrane organization, visual function, and to the understanding of the early p

88 lection, indicating that batters with better visual function are more likely to be successful when ba

89 To determine the association between QOL and visual function as measured by 24-2 and 10-2 VFs in pati

90 n and axon degeneration, and preservation of visual function as measured by electroretinogram.

91 in both blood and saliva was a predictor of visual function as measured by HVF diameter, rod amplitu

92 ters showed less dense vitreous, but similar visual function as untreated control participants with v

93 eir transplantation leads to the recovery of visual function, as shown by ganglion cell recordings an

94 length at 1 year were associated with worse visual function at 1 year (P = 0.034 for both).

95 med hallucinations (n=21) had reduced higher visual function at baseline, cortical thinning in pariet

96 We review changes in visual function at each stage of visual processing from

97 betes animal model, which negatively affects visual function at the early stage of DR.

98 producing rapid drainage with restoration of visual function avoiding more invasive procedures and en

99 fibre layer thickness (B=0.70, p<0.001) and visual function (B=-0.01, p=0.002).

100 l thickness, haze, intraocular pressure, and visual function before and 12 months after the CXL proce

101 es evidence of temporal decline in childhood visual function between 1961 and 1986.

102 cula and provides topographic information on visual function beyond visual acuity.

103 Sensitive, reproducible visual function biomarkers are necessary to evaluate the

104 nks to minimize information loss and improve visual functioning but we have little understanding of h

105 ination and a slower initial rate of loss of visual function by electroretinography, compared with ey

106 Numerous behavioral studies have shown that visual function can improve with training, although perc

107 prescribed), participants were assigned to a visual function category ranging from bilateral normal t

108 Secondary outcomes included comparison of visual function changes between treatment groups.

109 longitudinal relation between the course of visual function, course of the disease and types of trea

110 Visual function data (Square Localization [SL] and Direc

111 elationship between anatomic progression and visual function decline, including microperimetry, low-l

112 ltered inflammatory response and exacerbated visual function defects after retinal damage.

113 o be caused by specific cognitive and higher visual function deficits and patients who develop such s

114 Baseline data of visual function, demographics, and pit physiognomy were

115 LV rehabilitation group improved more in all visual function domains except mobility.

116 est retinal adaptation leading to persistent visual function during photoreceptor degenerative diseas

117 We tested the safety, tolerability, and visual function effects of oral NAC in RP patients.METHO

118 ) cells are essential for maintaining normal visual function, especially in their role in the visual

119 Binocular tests of visual function (Esterman VF score, binocular VA) were a

120 nt barriers remain in our ability to restore visual function following traumatic injury or disease-in

121 meaningful improvements in patient-reported visual functioning for patients with noninfectious inter

122 had the greatest effect on patient-reported visual function from among all risk factors.

123 % in inzoneSwingPct were noted in the better visual function group.

124 g those receiving immunosuppressive therapy, visual function improved in 50%.

125 iltrating cells, improved electrophysiologic visual function, improved long-term motor behavior, redu

126 proach) protected healthy RGCs and preserved visual function in a mouse ocular hypertension model.

127 sufficient to rescue retinal cell death and visual function in a vertebrate model of inherited blind

128 n the developing prenatal retina, as well as visual function in adult offspring.

129 To investigate visual function in adults post hemispherectomy in childh

130 meaningful impact of corneal verticillata on visual function in affected patients.

131 Use of CSIs to assess visual function in age-related macular degeneration (AMD

132 Meanwhile, increasing studies on visual function in ASD have pointed to detail-oriented p

133 gressive retinal degeneration and decline of visual function in both rod and cone photoreceptors.

134 ditory field responsible for the supranormal visual function in CDCs, the auditory dorsal zone (DZ).

135 h in adults, little is known about trends in visual function in childhood and its association with so

136 nal degeneration, which resulted in improved visual function in diabetic mice, suggesting that chromo

137 region of the cornea, an important area for visual function in dry eye sufferers, was shown to have

138 eptor death, resulting in life-long improved visual function in IL-1 receptor antagonist-treated OIR

139 because research into the factors that limit visual function in infants has found surprisingly mature

140 tributed to the current social patterning in visual function in older adults in the United Kingdom.

141 or death, which eventually led to decline of visual function in older mice between 6 and 12 months of

142 tches, is a promising approach for restoring visual function in patients suffering from degenerative

143 blind human retina may supplement or restore visual function in patients with regional retinal degene

144 ong-term stabilization and/or improvement in visual function in patients with RP.TRIAL REGISTRATIONNC

145 Visian ICL implantation improves visual function in special needs children who have moder

146 mation for estimating peripheral and central visual function in STGD.

147 photoperiod responsiveness independently of visual function in the compound eye and without affectin

148 eptors outside the lesion, thereby restoring visual function in the deafferented retina.

149 hemispherectomy in childhood may have better visual function in the eye ipsilateral to the side of th

150 le to undergo chemotherapy and radiotherapy, visual function in the fellow eye can be preserved.

151 To investigate the distribution of childhood visual function in the United Kingdom and associations w

152 may enable targeted intervention to preserve visual function in this high-risk group.

153 harder to detect incremental improvement in visual function in those with early disease and consider

154 pathological neovascularization and rescued visual function in Vldlr(-/-) mice.

155 d drive the recruitment of this area for non-visual functions in blind individuals [2, 3].

156 rostheses are promising tools for recovering visual functions in blind patients but, unfortunately, w

157 ce concerning the neural representations and visual functions in children who have undergone cortical

158 e photopigment melanopsin supports reflexive visual functions in people, such as pupil constriction a

159 Measurements of visual function included best-corrected visual acuity (B

160 h as detecting camouflaged targets for other visual functions including stereopsis and target trackin

161 cell disease may have direct consequences on visual function, including in children, even when visual

162 n-based signals also influence image-forming visual function, including light adaptation, but the mec

163 nopsin and mediate several non-image-forming visual functions, including circadian photoentrainment a

164 central role in voluntary as well as innate visual functions, including crucial contributions to sel

165 h tectum, have been implicated in a range of visual functions, including size discrimination, directi

166 2 (99.3%) who had gradable fundus images and Visual Function Index (VF-11) data available were includ

167 It is unclear whether visual function is affected by myopic vitreopathy and PV

168 surgical intervention for UGH or to improve visual function is critical in limiting long-term sequel

169 uctural changes occur at a time when central visual function is maintained.

170 Visual function is normal, and the condition is nonprogr

171 ical considerations led to the proposal that visual function is organized in separate processing stre

172 n of 11-cis-retinal, necessary for sustained visual function, is an endergonic process normally condu

173 e growing popularity of rodents as models of visual functions, it remains unclear whether their visua

174 ggested that overexpression of ERdj5 reduced visual function loss 10 weeks post-injection (PI).

175 home-based testing as well as for detecting visual function loss over time.

176 er interface (BCI) for objectively assessing visual function loss.

177 y serve as a secondary outcome parameter for visual function loss.

178 eripheral changes in AMD and their impact on visual function may contribute to understanding AMD path

179 ogies and circuitry, suggesting that complex visual functions may also be restored.SIGNIFICANCE STATE

180 ntralesional MA and any other morphologic or visual function measure.

181 the number of RGCs in the retina as well as visual function measured by PERG steadily decreased over

182 Secondary endpoints include the course of visual function (measured by visual acuity, visual field

183 difference between eyes in outcomes of other visual function measures was evident.

184 was achieved employing paired t tests to the visual function measures.

185 To assess the visual function of patients with sickle cell disease wit

186 structural macular damage and self-reported visual function of people with glaucoma.

187 Moreover, the visual function of S- and M-cones is markedly preserved

188 aque monkey was constructed to reconcile the visual functions of V1 with anatomical data on its LGN i

189 ns of the 2 symptom subscales (Local Eye and Visual Function) of the SHPC-18 with visual field severi

190 bcortical input to V5/MT supporting residual visual function or blindsight-like phenomena.

191 e of the hospitals reported patient reported visual functioning or vision-related quality of life out

192 etina gap distance correlates with objective visual function outcomes and sensitivity detection thres

193 It is not possible to predict visual function outcomes from GA lesion size.

194 ectrode array-retina gap distance may affect visual function outcomes in SL testing in certain patien

195 egimen, patients with nAMD maintained stable visual function over 4 years in a real-world setting wit

196 teral GA experienced a consistent decline in visual function over 48 weeks, but measures of visual fu

197 ed with increased loss of ganglion cells and visual function over a 30-day period.

198 Distribution of visual function over time and associations with social p

199 idized by their mitochondria is required for visual function, photoreceptor structure and viability,

200 is Pigmentosa patients associated with their visual function profile.

201 sessed by the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) at baseline a

202 the change in 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) total score f

203 on, measured with the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), in patients

204 y was assessed by the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25).

205 completed the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25).

206 damage completed the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25).

207 /pain; b) the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25); and c) the 1

208 National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) was administered

209 Quality of Life Instrument (NEI-RQL-42), NEI Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ), and the Ocular

210 means of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) and the Glauc

211 completed the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) during EDIC y

212 The 39-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-39) to assess par

213 severity and 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ25) subscales.

214 tomography (OCT), pupillometry, and the NEI Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ).

215 DRSS scores were correlated with the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) and 39-item Visua

216 as assessed using the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25), mental state wit

217 th PVD) completed the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-39) and were tested w

218 Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) and 39-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-39) scores at baselin

219 ormal eye health: the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire - 25 (NEI VFQ-25) where it

220 e, nonsurgical FTMH closure, vitrectomy, and Visual Function Questionnaire 25 (VFQ-25) outcomes.

221 e, as measured by the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25 (VFQ-25), the EuroQual-

222 [VAQ] and the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire [NEI VFQ-25]) and binocula

223 completed the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire and underwent a single stu

224 Composite 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire scores were superior for P

225 Visual Function Questionnaire was administered at the 1-

226 ual function (25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire), metamorphopsia score (M-

227 ease index (OSDI) and National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25) questionna

228 items from the National Eye Institute (NEI) Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) at baseline th

229 and an existing vision-related QOL tool, the Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (VFQ-25) was administer

230 e, contrast sensitivity, and stereopsis; and Visual Function Questionnaire-25 and supplementary quest

231 en utility values and visual acuity, age and Visual Function Questionnaire-25 scores.

232 targeted items in the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25.

233 ported on the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire.

234 responses to the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (higher scores indicate

235 responses to the Veterans Affairs Low Vision Visual Functioning Questionnaire (higher scores indicate

236 including the Indian CAARV (I-CAARV), Indian Visual Functioning Questionnaire (IND-VFQ), Spaeth/Richm

237 jects had the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) performed

238 atients completed the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) 30 to 90 days

239 Data from the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25) for the fi

240 Data on the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), EuroQol Q

241 ualitative scale, and National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire 25 (NEI VFQ-25).

242 ed with Rasch revised National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire 25 (NEI-VFQ25) and perc

243 ed in this study: the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire-25 (NEI VFQ-25), Glauco

244 S Medicare beneficiaries using self-reported visual function, reinforcing the value of identifying pa

245 ous model systems, the in vivo evaluation of visual function remains a challenge.

246 In the DCCT/EDIC cohort, patient-reported visual function remains high in both treatment groups, c

247 e reason why the influence of lens growth on visual function remains largely unknown.

248 ssing each outcome separately on categorical visual function responses, with missing data multiply im

249 First eye surgery improved visual function scores more than second eye surgery (-2.

250 early all traditional subscales (P < 0.001), visual function subscale (-3.85 vs. -2.91 logits, P < 0.

251 ated with driving and distance vision of the visual function subscale.

252 gnificantly with near vision question of the visual function subscale.

253 ncy were 0.83 and 0.89 for the Local Eye and Visual Function subscales, respectively, and remained st

254 nal growth modeling documented Local Eye and Visual Function symptom subscales.

255 NPDR or PDR had difficulty with at least one visual function task.

256 A visual function test (EVTS) was performed on 585 profess

257 five patients underwent at least 1 binocular visual function test.

258 n vivo optical coherence tomography imaging, visual function testing and histologic assessment, we ob

259 Patients that worsened in visual function testing with the device ON in both SL an

260 atients performed significantly better in SL visual function testing with the device ON.

261 better with the Argus II on than off on all visual function tests and functional vision tasks.

262 n the current study we evaluated a series of visual function tests to identify potential endpoints to

263 A series of visual function tests were performed on 23 non-advanced

264 Visual function tests were performed with the device OFF

265 To assess the relationship of binocular visual function tests with binocular approximations usin

266 Of visual function tests, only microperimetry outcomes were

267 therefore a more comprehensive assessment of visual function than acuity, which only determines the s

268 d eyes showed less dense vitreous and better visual function than those of untreated control particip

269 Interocular grouping (IOG) is a binocular visual function that can arise during multi-stable perce

270 c deficit in binocular rivalry [11], a basic visual function that is thought to rely on the balance o

271 e and clinically significant improvements in visual function, thereby making this program a frontrunn

272 ses questions about the development of basic visual functions thought to derive from surround suppres

273 pyruvate kinase M2 isoform (PKM2) regulates visual function through regulation of a key enzyme, phos

274 We also tested visual function to assess potential impact of the observ

275 ssed inflammatory responses to obtain better visual function to nearly the same extent in vivo.

276 on and interactions, worry regarding child's visual function (total 35 items).

277 retina has the remarkable ability to support visual function under conditions of limited illumination

278 at large opsin repertoires serve to optimize visual function under variable light environments by dif

279 osed to weathered crude oil and assessed for visual function using an optokinetic response, with subs

280 Binocular visual function (VF and VA) and VR QOL.

281 The impact of baseline measurements of visual function (visual acuity and visual field), demogr

282 Poorer visual function was associated significantly with initia

283 t of increasing severity, all-cause impaired visual function was associated with adverse social outco

284 Visual function was associated with tasks that rely on v

285 Rescue of visual function was confirmed by electroretinography.

286 a KO mice, but electroretinography indicated visual function was normal.

287 ts, and improvement in 1 or more measures of visual function was observed in 9 of 12 patients.

288 Visual function was partially restored in treated animal

289 The average number of reduced visual functions was lower in emmetropic than in hyperop

290 Using the optokinetic reflex to evaluate visual function, we observed robustly enhanced visual re

291 ocular approximations to represent binocular visual function were assessed with Pearson's correlation

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

293 cident MA and drug or treatment frequency or visual function were detected, providing some reassuranc

294 Three aspects of visual function were measured: habitual binocular distan

295 sual function over 48 weeks, but measures of visual function were not correlated strongly with GA les

296 The following visual functions were also measured: visual acuity, low

297 ntified (n = 61 [6.2%]), significantly worse visual functions were best-corrected visual acuity (P =

298 Corneal transplantation restores visual function when visual impairment caused by a corne

299 n of retinal neurons and persistently rescue visual functions when subretinally injected in a rat mod

300 trophysiological assessments of auditory and visual function with diffusion MRI in aged macaques.