ライフサイエンスコーパス: visual function

1 genation to maintain cellular metabolism and visual function.

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

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

4 Electroretinogram was used to evaluate visual function.

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

6 ifications can be reversed to restore normal visual function.

7 for synaptic transmission underlying normal visual function.

8 vessels, as well as decreased inner retinal visual function.

9 nment maximally, and regenerates lenses with visual function.

10 nd assessed the cardinal features of BBS and visual function.

11 opment of interventions to retain or restore visual function.

12 mes significantly predicted change in GO-QOL visual function.

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

14 eads to progressive and irreversible loss of visual function.

15 t Development III and tests of executive and visual function.

16 stinct objects and surfaces is a fundamental visual function.

17 toreceptor renewal and recycling to preserve visual function.

18 , retinal morphology correlated tightly with visual function.

19 uired for photoreceptor cell maintenance and visual function.

20 xposure to methamphetamine did not influence visual function.

21 perative visual acuity, and patient-reported visual function.

22 cone photoreceptors, and partially restores visual function.

23 tion is the most relevant imaging marker for visual function.

24 retinal degeneration accompanied by loss of visual function.

25 was independently associated with a reduced visual function.

26 d, preference values declined with worsening visual function.

27 nt, many early-onset cblC patients have poor visual function.

28 is known about its potential consequences on visual function.

29 HDACi can rescue cone photoreceptor-mediated visual function.

30 al postnatal period when mice acquire mature visual function.

31 strocytes play a protective role, preserving visual function.

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

33 ith early disease and considerable remaining visual function.

34 lar phenotype that is associated with normal visual function.

35 hy accompanied by significant alterations in visual function.

36 obe than primary regions of sensorimotor and visual function.

37 this reactivity is beneficial or harmful for visual function.

38 ssion and identifying parameters that affect visual function.

39 hosphorylation for its phototransduction and visual function.

40 nocular tests or binocular approximations of visual function.

41 d in those with relatively preserved central visual function.

42 lpful for determining and predicting overall visual function.

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

44 ematic study on both monocular and binocular visual functions.

45 s over different times courses for different visual functions.

46 en retinal signaling and therefore preserved visual functions.

47 enabling factor for generalization to other visual functions.

48 be too slow to support a role in high-level visual functions.

49 ections, which presumably underlie different visual functions.

50 these signals support their contribution to visual functions.

51 een LWS cone topographies suggests differing visual functions.

52 e emerging as increasingly popular models of visual functions.

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

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

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

56 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

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

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

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

60 syndrome type IIa have an earlier decline of visual function and a higher cumulative risk of visual i

61 stained and significant large improvement in visual function and acuity.

62 detected between groups with respect to all visual function and anatomical outcomes assessed.

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

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

65 ondary outcomes included other parameters of visual function and foveal thickness.

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

67 These processes drive visual function and influence behavioral preferences.

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

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

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

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

72 visual pathways may set important limits on visual function and show greater vulnerability to abnorm

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

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

75 We review the link between abnormal visual function and visual hallucinations, considering c

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

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

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

79 lar histopathology, accumulation of albumin, visual function, and biochemical and physiological abnor

80 ventions, change in visual acuity, change in visual function, and duration of follow-up are reported.

81 l acuity, refractive error, patient-reported visual function, and early and late complications of sur

82 stigated the relationship among vector dose, visual function, and electroretinography (ERG) findings.

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

84 in retinal and choroidal anatomic features, visual function, and risk factor profile exist in unilat

85 PN5) fail to photoentrain, even though other visual functions appear largely normal.

86 Robust and sensitive imaging biomarkers for visual function are an unmet medical need in the managem

87 ns provide converging evidence that gains in visual function are minimal and deficits are most severe

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

89 ness, and relatedness of adverse events) and visual function, as measured by 3 computer-based, object

90 ness, and relatedness of adverse events) and visual function, as measured by 3 computer-based, object

91 retinal vascular autoregulation testing and visual function assessment using frequency doubling tech

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

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

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

95 ctivity limitation, psychosocial impact, and visual function) at 3 months.

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

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

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

99 ers of XLRP had mildly or moderately reduced visual function but rarely became legally blind.

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

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

102 This quantifiable negative impact on visual function can distinguish patients who are not sig

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

104 t statistically significant deterioration in visual function compared with both RGPL and spectacle we

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

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

107 Although GA can result in significant visual function deficits in reading, night vision, and d

108 Visual function demands coordinated responses to informa

109 Impaired visual function, detected as a deficit in the scotopic e

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

111 for up to 2.2 years for safety outcomes and visual function endpoints including Goldmann visual fiel

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

113 specific DA receptor pathways could improve visual function (evaluated with optokinetic tracking res

114 of implant system performance tests, subject visual function evaluation, and implant-retina interface

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

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

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

118 ssessed safety, immune response, retinal and visual function, functional vision, and activation of th

119 A year later visual function had improved, with shrinkage of the enla

120 x health state classification, which defines visual function health states.

121 ivation, which contributes to RPE damage and visual function impairment.

122 s a safe and effective option for vision and visual function improvement in astigmatism.

123 on outside native photoreceptors and restore visual function in a mouse model of advanced retinal deg

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

125 To investigate visual function in adults post hemispherectomy in childh

126 atistical significant increase for binocular visual function in all distances could be found.

127 pecific delivery of photoswitches to restore visual function in blinding disease.

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

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

130 is the most frequently performed measure of visual function in clinical practice and most people wor

131 dence of sustained, long-term improvement of visual function in glaucoma.

132 ross-sectional survey of ocular biometry and visual function in healthy eyes across the life span of

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

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

135 e of critical period and deficient binocular visual function in mature animals.

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

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

138 We consider changes in visual function in patients with common Parkinson's dise

139 y is well tolerated, and can rapidly improve visual function in some patients with Leber congenital a

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

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

142 dhesion (VMA) resolution on patient-reported visual function in symptomatic VMA/vitreomacular tractio

143 y meaningful improvement in patient-reported visual function in symptomatic VMA/VMT.

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

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

146 t (study eye) scheduled for surgery and good visual function in the fellow (control eye).

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

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

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

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

151 ignificantly poorer objective and subjective visual functioning in all metrics examined (P < 0.05), w

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

153 a DA precursor, improved overall retinal and visual functions in diabetic mice and acute treatment wi

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

155 a generalized recovery of a range of spatial visual functions in the amblyopic brain.

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

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

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

159 2 (99.3%) who had gradable fundus images and Visual Function Index (VF-11) data available were includ

160 and effect sizes for results of the modified Visual Function Index were calculated for 3 categories o

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

162 Visual function is normal, and the condition is nonprogr

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

164 ration have lasting influence on retinal and visual function, likely through developmental programmin

165 ograde melanopsin-based signaling influences visual function locally within the retina, a notion that

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

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

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

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

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

171 , vision satisfaction, and dysphotopsia) and visual function measures (near, intermediate, and distan

172 e performed to evaluate associations between visual function measures and retinal layer thicknesses.

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

174 Visual function measures were compared among patients wi

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

176 than 20/100 reported the largest decline in visual function (median difference, -21.0; 95% CI, -40.5

177 Both methods can be useful to follow the visual function of diabetic patients and should be used

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

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

180 ting implications of these abnormalities for visual function of the child need to be studied.

181 There was a significant improvement in the visual function of the patients based on the NEI VFQ-25

182 ions play a major role in all aspects of the visual functions of the model.

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

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

185 abeculectomy did not differ significantly in visual function or local eye symptoms from those that un

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

187 None had impairment of visual functions or facial sensation, but 4 of 14 patien

188 s was not detected with respect to the other visual function outcomes and all anatomic outcomes asses

189 ty and efficacy profiles, including improved visual function outcomes over extended periods.

190 Microperimetry detected subtle changes in visual function over a 12-month period in eyes with inte

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

192 ng the RPE65 complementary DNA, and measured visual function over the course of 3 years.

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

194 e no placebo-controlled trials have assessed visual function preservation, and the observation period

195 is Pigmentosa patients associated with their visual function profile.

196 All subjects had National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ)-25 performed ann

197 ell as on the National Eye Institute 25-Item Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) (beta = -3.4,

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

199 The 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) was performed

200 s were evaluated with National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25), FDT, and sta

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

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

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

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

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

206 QOL with the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25).

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

208 Mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ) scores significantly

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

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

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

212 L was assessed by the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25 (NEI-VFQ-25) and a modi

213 -related HRQoL by the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire 25 (NEI-VFQ-25).

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

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

216 domain of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire and superior or inferior h

217 The Activity Inventory, a visual function questionnaire, was administered to measu

218 The Activity Inventory (AI), an adaptive visual function questionnaire, was administered to measu

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

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

221 asures, including the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 and the Short Form-36 p

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

223 tly, 6 items from the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 were used to develop th

224 dies that include the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25.

225 Results indicate that the Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index describes st

226 on Questionnaire-25 were used to develop the Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index health state

227 Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index health state

228 ht of 15,625 possible health states from the Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index were valued

229 A theta severity score was calculated for Visual Function Questionnaire-Utility Index-defined heal

230 ersion of the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire.

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

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

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

234 The 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire (NEI VFQ-25) was perfor

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

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

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

238 quality of life (the National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire 25 and the Modified Gla

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

240 sed using the 25-item National Eye Institute Visual Functioning Questionnaire; best spectacle-correct

241 l prognosis correlates with pre-explantation visual function (r = 0.68, P = .02).

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

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

244 The GO-QOL visual function scores did not change significantly unti

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

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

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

248 sition is essential to unraveling high-level visual functions such as eye movement planning, coordina

249 Other visual functions such as habitual visual acuity and ster

250 The ipRGCs regulate other nonimage-forming visual functions such as the pupillary light reflex, mas

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

252 The development of visual function takes place over many months or years in

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

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

255 He underwent detailed neurological and visual function testing and lipoprotein analysis.

256 ts had logMAR visual acuity measurement, FDT visual function testing, autorefraction, A-scan biometry

257 ly better with the system on than off on all visual function tests and functional vision assessments.

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

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

260 in response to the development of sensitive visual function tests, structural markers such as optica

261 es by combining RNFL thickness analysis with visual function tests.

262 tly greater for inferior RNFL thickness than visual-function tests (P < 0.001).

263 Low specificity of visual-function tests precludes their use in isolation,

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

265 of RPGR ORF15 mutations tended to have worse visual function than carriers of RPGR exon 1 through 14

266 d a clinically meaningful worsening in their visual function than the placebo group (15.0% vs 24.3%,

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

268 tients with such damage retain some residual visual function that must rely on an alternative pathway

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

270 trials demonstrated temporary improvement in visual function, this approach has yet to achieve sustai

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

272 Products, Inc, Sylmar, CA) in restoring some visual function to subjects completely blind from RP.

273 The visual function trajectory in uveitic eyes demonstrated

274 phic changes as well as associations between visual function, ultra-widefield FA-derived metrics, and

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

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

277 emonstrate the efficacy of HITI in improving visual function using a rat model of the retinal degener

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

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

280 ere was no association with visual symptoms, visual functioning, visual acuity, refractive error, vis

281 hy, and fundus autofluorescence imaging, and visual function was assessed by electroretinography.

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 Rescue of visual function was confirmed by electroretinography.

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

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

287 Visual function was partially restored in treated animal

288 The resulting improvement in visual function was understood to be due to donor cells

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

290 Visual acuity and visual function were assessed before and after PROSE fit

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 Three aspects of visual function were measured: habitual binocular distan

294 Objective measures of visual function were obtained from timed performance of

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

296 with their targets and the consequences for visual function when targeting is impaired.

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

298 indness was previously shown to restore some visual functions when stimulated by UV light.

299 mild TBI frequently leads to disruptions in visual functioning, while moderate or severe TBI often c

300 ATP caused significant loss of visual function within 1 day and loss of 50% of the phot