ライフサイエンスコーパス: binocular

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

2 inearly at two stages, one monocular and one binocular.

3 However, the binocular 10-2 sensitivities of 24-2 outliers had the st

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

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

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

7 Association of binocular 24-2 and 10-2 VF sensitivity with Rasch-calibr

8 based on Cook distance of the regression of binocular 24-2 and NEI VFQ-25 score.

9 ular channels using untilted or non-oriented binocular adaptation patterns, we controlled the perceiv

10 tients in whom surgery successfully restored binocular alignment.

11 almost as gracefully as subjects with normal binocular alignment.

12 consistent with a sensory difference between binocular and dichoptic sensory mechanisms.

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

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

15 Importance: A binocular approach to treating anisometropic and strabis

16 The binocular approximations of binocular visual function we

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

18 onnaire [NEI VFQ-25]) and binocular tests or binocular approximations of visual function.

19 Associations between binocular tests and binocular approximations to represent binocular visual f

20 ship of binocular visual function tests with binocular approximations using data from the Collaborati

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

22 < 0.05 for all) than correlations with all 7 binocular approximations.

23 more closely with reported functioning than binocular approximations.

24 usted by a computer staircase to determine a binocular Balance Point at which the observer reports th

25 s syndrome and myopia improved monocular and binocular BCVA and contrast sensitivity.

26 +/- 0.21 logMAR to 0.27 +/- 0.25 logMAR and binocular BCVA improved from 0.33 +/- 0.2 logMAR to 0.17

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

28 electively desensitizing one or other of the binocular channels using untilted or non-oriented binocu

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

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

31 ocular energy model-a well-known model of V1 binocular complex cells-fails to signal disparity here.

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

33 In the clinic, binocular contrast sensitivity (CS) and better-eye visua

34 At 3 months defocus testing, binocular contrast sensitivity (CS) under photopic and m

35 : habitual binocular distance visual acuity, binocular contrast sensitivity (CS), and the binocular d

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

37 The binocular contrast summation ratio is significantly lowe

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

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

40 evealing increased eye movements and altered binocular coordination compared to head-fixed mice.

41 is believed to depend on the computation of binocular correlation by neurons in primary visual corte

42 e depth in a class of stimuli where the mean binocular correlation is 0 (half-matched random dot ster

43 ns can perceive depth in stimuli with a mean binocular correlation of zero (where a correlation-based

44 Strengthening of remaining eye inputs in the binocular cortex is followed by cross-modal adaptations

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

46 ng contrast in the AE decreased responses at binocular cortical sites.

47 nimodal responses of the adult monocular and binocular cortices also mirror regional specificity in i

48 f the adaptation of the medial monocular and binocular cortices to long-term ME or dark exposure or a

49 Our findings suggest that the two binocular cues for 3D motion might be processed by separ

50 ial to understand how-or indeed if-these two binocular cues interact.

51 pposite 3D directions generated by different binocular cues resulted in simultaneous, superimposed, o

52 Binocular defocus curve showed peaks with best visual ac

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

54 either pairing differ after monocular versus binocular deprivation [8-11].

55 ctile simultaneity after either monocular or binocular deprivation.

56 this theory has been limited [3, 4], and the binocular differencing channel is missing from many mode

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

58 Binocular diplopia due to the glaucoma procedure was pre

59 Binocular diplopia not due to surgery was found in simil

60 The prevalence of monocular diplopia and binocular diplopia unrelated to glaucoma surgery was sim

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

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

63 We find that, in humans, color versus binocular disparity columns extend one full area further

64 ese results also hold in models that include binocular disparity computations, providing a platform f

65 Using binocular disparity estimation as a concrete test case,

66 Binocular disparity is a powerful depth cue for object p

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

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

69 ng for 4 cues (shading, motion, texture, and binocular disparity) with corresponding 2D and elementar

70 ever, generally share preferences for depth (binocular disparity).

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

72 ted largely by relative rather than absolute binocular disparity, and depth is perceived primarily fo

73 ectively to stimulus variations in color and binocular disparity, respectively.

74 the better (P = .62) or worse (P = .88) eye, binocular distance (P = .15) or near (P = .23) visual ac

75 l performance, with no significant change in binocular distance vision or CS.

76 s of visual function were measured: habitual binocular distance visual acuity, binocular contrast sen

77 binocular contrast sensitivity (CS), and the binocular driving visual field constructed from combinin

78 correlated and anticorrelated dots, and the binocular energy model-a well-known model of V1 binocula

79 w that a straightforward modification to the binocular energy model-adding a point output nonlinearit

80 t of visual acuity is also fully reversed by binocular experience following treatment and, further, t

81 onfounding factors, each 1 dB/year change in binocular FDT mean sensitivity corresponded to a change

82 Integrated binocular fields were estimated from the monocular field

83 All participants underwent visual acuity, binocular function, visual field, optical coherence tomo

84 ments from baseline were significant for the binocular game (mean [SD] improvement, 1.5 [0.8] lines;

85 ed from baseline at the 2-week visit for the binocular game (mean [SD], 4.82 [2.82] vs 3.24 [2.87]; P

86 20/125]), with 14 children randomized to the binocular game and 14 to patching for 2 weeks.

87 Interventions: Binocular game and patching as amblyopia treatments.

88 e 176 participants (22.2%) randomized to the binocular game and with log file data available performe

89 t in amblyopic eye BCVA was greater with the binocular game compared with patching, with a mean (SD)

90 han 13 years, amblyopic-eye VA improved with binocular game play and with patching, particularly in y

91 enrolled in the study, with 14 randomized to binocular game treatment and 14 to patching treatment.

92 Patching children crossed over to binocular game treatment, and all 28 children played the

93 logMAR (mean [SD], 1.7 [1.0] lines) for the binocular game vs a mean (SD) improvement of 0.16 (0.12)

94 hange, with children who crossed over to the binocular games catching up with children treated with b

95 Amblyopia can be treated with binocular games that rebalance contrast between the eyes

96 Binocular games that rebalance contrast to overcome supp

97 games catching up with children treated with binocular games, for a mean (SD) improvement of 0.17 (0.

98 nes (2-sided 95% CI, 0.85-1.24 lines) in the binocular group and 1.35 lines (2-sided 95% CI, 1.17-1.5

99 ved by a mean (SD) of 2.5 (1.5) lines in the binocular group and 2.8 (0.8) lines in the patching grou

100 dence interval [CI]: 1.3-5.7 letters) in the binocular group and by 6.5 letters (2-sided 95% CI: 4.4-

101 escribed for 1 hour a day (190 participants; binocular group) or patching of the fellow eye prescribe

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

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

104 Binocular imaging with additional video cameras enabled

105 Amblyopes showed pronounced binocular imbalance across all spatial frequencies, with

106 While amblyopia involves both binocular imbalance and deficits in processing high spat

107 ngs suggest that spatial-frequency dependent binocular imbalance may be useful for diagnosing amblyop

108 wn about the spatial-frequency dependence of binocular imbalance.

109 to the preoperative status, especially after binocular implantation.

110 assification after routine examination using binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) and obtained wid

111 ated tuberculosis, and point-of-care dilated binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy eye examination can pr

112 stem uses both velocity- and disparity-based binocular information for computing 3D motion, it is unk

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

114 Similarly, the proportion of patients with binocular inhibition (BiS score worse by at least 5 lett

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

116 While we find that binocular inputs to a subset of cells are important for

117 ncing channel is missing from many models of binocular integration [5-10].

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

119 Recent electrophysiological studies tested binocular integration in MT and found surprisingly that

120 els of this area have largely overlooked the binocular integration of motion signals.

121 c plaids, that opponent suppression precedes binocular integration, and that opponent suppression wil

122 Using microelectrode arrays, we examined binocular interaction in primary visual cortex and V2 of

123 sorder that alters both monocular vision and binocular interaction.

124 To measure suppressive binocular interactions directly, we recorded neuronal re

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

126 We measured binocular interactions in visual cortex of anesthetized

127 Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of a binocular iPad (Apple Inc) adventure game as amblyopia t

128 Interventions: Binocular iPad game or patching of the fellow eye.

129 re randomly assigned to either 16 weeks of a binocular iPad game prescribed for 1 hour a day (190 par

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

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

132 t in teenagers with amblyopia treated with a binocular iPad game vs part-time patching.

133 nt in children with amblyopia treated with a binocular iPad game vs part-time patching.

134 Conclusions and Relevance: A binocular iPad game was effective in treating childhood

135 ted that VA improvement with this particular binocular iPad treatment was not as good as with 2 hours

136 In contrast, visual deprivation with binocular lid suturing resulted in increased visual homo

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

138 Mean binocular logMAR near VA was better in emmetropic than i

139 forebrain excitatory neurons replicates the binocular matching deficits.

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

141 Binocular matching is thus mediated by orientation-speci

142 neurons determining a specific impairment of binocular matching of orientation preference, but leavin

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

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

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

146 individual layer 4 neurons and studied their binocular matching.

147 nvestigate the association between change in binocular mean sensitivities and change in NEI VFQ-25 Ra

148 ly significant correlation between change in binocular mean sensitivity for FDT and change in NEI VFQ

149 Each 1 decibel (dB)/year change in binocular mean sensitivity of the central inferior area

150 ls were used to calculate rates of change in binocular mean sensitivity over time.

151 The mean rate of change in binocular mean sensitivity was faster for patients who r

152 Binocular mechanisms for visual processing are thought t

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

154 supports accumulating evidence that clinical binocular misalignment patterns are not reliable indicat

155 We built binocular models in which signals from left- and right-e

156 ion, each 0.5-dB/year faster rate of loss of binocular MS during follow-up was associated with a more

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

158 visual field loss as estimated by integrated binocular MS were almost 4 times faster for those in who

159 ntoparallel motion studies concurrently in a binocular MT motion model, we generated clear, testable

160 a >/=3.0 to </=6.0 D associated with reduced binocular near VA (20/40 or worse) or reduced near stere

161 res were observed in hyperopic children with binocular near VA of 20/40 or worse (-8.5, P = 0.002 for

162 Accommodative response, binocular near VA, and near stereoacuity were measured.

163 ses a shift in the response of visual cortex binocular neurons in favor of the nondeprived eye, a pro

164 Binocular neurons that are well matched in spatial frequ

165 s there was a statistical significant better binocular outcome in all distances (UDVA p = 0.036; UIVA

166 panoramic visual field with a small frontal binocular overlap of 20 degrees .

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

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

169 ds a new twist to the traditional view about binocular processing in the primate visual system and ra

170 f dorsal lateral geniculate nucleus in early binocular processing.

171 The URE was defined as binocular PVA of </= 20/30, improving to >20/30 with sub

172 r, intermediate, and distance visual acuity, binocular reading speed [International Reading Speed Tex

173 tion persisted during subsequent 2-4 days of binocular recovery.

174 r BD tended to be reversed during subsequent binocular recovery.

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

176 oviding a platform for future exploration of binocular response properties in MT.

177 known about the spatial frequency tuning of binocular responses in mouse visual cortex.

178 cture and function of connections underlying binocular responses of neurons in the visual cortex.

179 Binocular responses were obtained with the head and trun

180 Comparing the monocular results to the binocular results there was a statistical significant be

181 Whereas 10 days of dark exposure or binocular retinal inactivation were not better at promot

182 ate a robust, replicated autistic deficit in binocular rivalry [11], a basic visual function that is

183 tive advantage during a subsequent period of binocular rivalry [6-8], the robust form of visual compe

184 g behavioral and EEG results have shown that binocular rivalry and attention are intertwined: binocul

185 ed two different kinds of ambiguous stimuli, binocular rivalry and the phenomenon of ambiguous struct

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

187 ngs highlight the interplay of attention and binocular rivalry at multiple visual processing stages a

188 on, reveal that stimulus predominance during binocular rivalry can be realized both through an eye-sp

189 cular rivalry and attention are intertwined: binocular rivalry ceases when attention is diverted away

190 copy, we demonstrate a tight linkage between binocular rivalry dynamics in typical participants and b

191 ally, we show that the link between GABA and binocular rivalry dynamics is completely and specificall

192 he final result was a dramatic alteration in binocular rivalry dynamics, leading to profound predomin

193 In two binocular rivalry experiments, we manipulated the sense

194 dynamically under constant external inputs, binocular rivalry has been used for studying intrinsic c

195 found near stereoacuity and pAE dominance in binocular rivalry in "treated" amblyopia were largely co

196 This large change in binocular rivalry predominance was driven by two factors

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

198 perceptual changes observed while viewing a binocular rivalry stimulus or an ambiguous structure-fro

199 demonstrate that the relative resistance of binocular rivalry to selective modulations gradually ero

200 lar suppression and related phenomena (e.g., binocular rivalry, flash suppression, continuous flash s

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

202 However, existing studies have found that binocular rivalry-a phenomenon characterized by perceptu

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

204 nhibition: spatial suppression of motion and binocular rivalry.

205 he deprived eye perceptual boost measured by binocular rivalry.

206 Progressive binocular RNFL thickness loss was associated with worsen

207 cores was associated uniquely with change in binocular RNFL thickness.

208 Each 1 decibel (dB)/year change in binocular SAP MS was associated with a change of 2.0 uni

209 comorbidity index, each 1 dB/year change in binocular SAP MS was associated with a change of 3.0 uni

210 he GDS scores during follow-up and change in binocular SAP sensitivity.

211 Rasch scores during follow-up and change in binocular SAP sensitivity.

212 We found that these two binocular signals are processed distinctly at the levels

213 ich the brain extracts 3D motion given these binocular signals, it is essential to understand how-or

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

215 encing channels that adapt to the prevailing binocular statistics.

216 Binocular stereopsis is one of the primary cues for thre

217 cuity, contrast sensitivity, vernier acuity, binocular stereopsis, and visual perception.

218 ages presented to the two eyes such that the binocular summation and difference signals were tilted i

219 compelling evidence that the brain contains binocular summation and differencing channels that adapt

220 tly in the brain using mutually decorrelated binocular summation and differencing channels; when a ch

221 The relationship between binocular summation and stereoacuity was studied by Spea

222 ese findings demonstrate that stereopsis and binocular summation are significantly correlated in pati

223 than those with better-eye, average-eye, and binocular summation of VA (r = -0.12 to -0.25), but not

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

225 cation, and binocular summation or pointwise binocular summation.

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

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

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

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

230 blyopic eye (AE) revealed a form of balanced binocular suppression that is unaltered in amblyopia.

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

232 Associations between binocular tests and binocular approximations to represen

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

234 ual Function Questionnaire [NEI VFQ-25]) and binocular tests or binocular approximations of visual fu

235 esults suggest that structured monocular and binocular training are necessary to fully recover defici

236 However, it is unclear whether binocular treatment is comparable to patching in treatin

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

238 game as amblyopia treatment and compare this binocular treatment with patching, the current standard

239 S): Three-months-postoperative monocular and binocular UCVA and DCVA in 4 m, 80 cm, and 40 cm (logMAR

240 Binocular UCVA at distance, intermediate, and near was -

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

242 ly, 93% of patients achieved 20/20 or better binocular UDVA; 90% and 97% of patients had J2 or better

243 0.06; binocular UNVA, 0.05 logMAR +/- 0.08; binocular UIVA, -0.05 logMAR +/- 0.12; spherical equival

244 included manifest refraction; monocular and binocular uncorrected (UCVA) and distance-corrected (DCV

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

246 r visual acuity (DCNVA) of nondominant eyes; binocular uncorrected distance visual acuity (UDVA); unc

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

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

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

250 All patients achieved a binocular uncorrected visual acuity better than 0.3 LogM

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

252 Mean binocular uncorrected visual acuity in photopic conditio

253 Mesopic binocular uncorrected visual acuity values were similar

254 0.05; monocular CDVA, 0.03 logMAR +/- 0.06; binocular UNVA, 0.05 logMAR +/- 0.08; binocular UIVA, -0

255 e affects GABAergic synaptic transmission in binocular V1 and the plastic immunity observed at P45 is

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

257 n contrast, correlations between the VAQ and binocular VA (r = -0.07 to -0.21) were weaker in all sub

258 Binocular VA showed stronger correlations with binocular

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

260 dination of monocular saccade amplitudes and binocular vergence eye movements.

261 f those patients exhibiting relatively early binocular VF loss had a defect confined to the inferior

262 for interpreting findings about location of binocular VF loss impacting everyday activities and exam

263 asurable VF loss in both eyes, superior-only binocular VF loss is more common than inferior-only loss

264 Common patterns of binocular VF loss were dominated chiefly by superior hem

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

266 n by the stronger eye often dominates during binocular viewing, blocking the image of the weaker eye

267 5 (4.5%) had at least 1 reported disorder of binocular vision (strabismus, 2.3%; diplopia, 2.2%; ambl

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

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

270 OR) for the association between disorders of binocular vision and any of the 3 injury types was 2.23

271 Disorders of binocular vision are increasingly prevalent among fee-fo

272 toperative outcomes indicate improvements in binocular vision at far, intermediate, and near distance

273 in the visual cortex that reduce acuity and binocular vision by causing neurons to lose responsivene

274 near visual symptoms in children with normal binocular vision compared with symptoms caused by prefer

275 ia and as an outcome measure for recovery of binocular vision following therapy.

276 Binocular vision in amblyopes is often disrupted by inte

277 cent study provides compelling evidence that binocular vision uses two separate channels; one channel

278 Patients with binocular vision will be sensitive to diplopia in any ga

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

280 in individuals with and without disorders of binocular vision.

281 Presenting distance uniocular and binocular visual acuity were assessed using a 3-m logMAR

282 The mammalian binocular visual circuit is comprised of projections of

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

284 Using monocular or binocular visual deprivation, we examined the effects of

285 responsiveness caused by MD is reversed when binocular visual experience follows temporary anesthetic

286 the mean sensitivity (MS) of the integrated binocular visual field (BVF).

287 Association between rates of binocular visual field loss and self-reported number of

288 Participants who passed the Esterman binocular visual field test for driving in the United Ki

289 An integrated binocular visual field was estimated from the monocular

290 , and peripheral superior) of the integrated binocular visual field.

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

292 Mean sensitivities of the integrated binocular visual fields were estimated for FDT and SAP a

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

294 and closure of critical period and deficient binocular visual function in mature animals.

295 d seventy-five patients underwent at least 1 binocular visual function test.

296 To assess the relationship of binocular visual function tests with binocular approxima

297 ts and binocular approximations to represent binocular visual function were assessed with Pearson's c

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

299 en no systematic study on both monocular and binocular visual functions.

300 e mouse has emerged as a prominent model for binocular visual processing, yet little is known about t