https://www.acotv.org/media/com_lazypdf/pdf/perceptual_learning_as_a_potential_treatment_for_amblyopia_a_mini-review.pdf

Perceptual learning as a potential treatment for amblyopia: A mini-review

The contrast sensitivity function (CSF) predicts functional vision better than acuity, but long testing times prevent its psychophysical assessment in clinical and practical applications. This study presents the quick CSF (qCSF) method, a Bayesian adaptive procedure that applies a strategy developed to estimate multiple parameters of the psychometric function (A. B. Cobo-Lewis, 1996; L. L. Kontsevich & C. W. Tyler, 1999). Before each trial, a one-step-ahead search finds the grating stimulus (defined by frequency and contrast) that maximizes the expected information gain (J. V. Kujala & T. J. Lukka, 2006; L. A. Lesmes et al., 2006), about four CSF parameters. By directly estimating CSF parameters, data collected at one spatial frequency improves sensitivity estimates across all frequencies. A psychophysical study validated that CSFs obtained with 100 qCSF trials ( approximately 10 min) exhibited good precision across spatial frequencies (SD < 2-3 dB) and excellent agreement with CSFs obtained independently (mean RMSE = 0.86 dB). To estimate the broad sensitivity metric provided by the area under the log CSF (AULCSF), only 25 trials were needed to achieve a coefficient of variation of 15-20%. The current study demonstrates the method's value for basic and clinical investigations. Further studies, applying the qCSF to measure wider ranges of normal and abnormal vision, will determine how its efficiency translates to clinical assessment.

/pdf/bayesian-adaptive-estimation-of-the-contrast-sensitivity-1hefqux2qe.pdf

Bayesian adaptive estimation of the contrast sensitivity function: The quick CSF method

Congenital stationary night blindness: an analysis and update of genotype-phenotype correlations and pathogenic mechanisms.

Amblyopia, defined as poor vision due to abnormal visual experience early in life, affects approximately three per cent of the population and carries a projected lifetime risk of visual loss of at least 1.2 per cent. The presence of amblyopia or its risk factors, mainly strabismus or refractive error, have been primary conditions targeted in childhood vision screenings. Continued support for such screenings requires evidence-based understanding of the prevalence and natural history of amblyopia and its predisposing conditions, and proof that treatment is effective in the long term with minimal negative impact on the patient and family. This review summarises recent research relevant to the clinical understanding of amblyopia, including prevalence data, risk factors, the functional impact of amblyopia and optimum treatment regimes and their justification from a vision and life skills perspective. Collectively, these studies indicate that treatment for amblyopia is effective in reducing the overall prevalence and severity of visual loss from amblyopia. Correction of refractive error alone has been shown to significantly reduce amblyopia and less frequent occlusion can be just as effective as more extensive occlusion. Occlusion or penalisation in amblyopia treatment can create negative changes in behaviour in children and impact on family life, and these factors should be considered in prescribing treatment, particularly because of their influence on compliance. Ongoing treatment trials are being undertaken to determine both the maximum age at which treatment of amblyopia can still be effective and the importance of near activities during occlusion. This review highlights the expansion of current knowledge regarding amblyopia and its treatment to help clinicians provide the best level of care for their amblyopic patients that current knowledge allows.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2005.tb05102.x

Amblyopia: prevalence, natural history, functional effects and treatment.

Amblyopia characterization, treatment, and prophylaxis.

The purpose of the present study is to determine how long visual function improves during levodopa/carbidopa with part-time occlusion treatment in older amblyopic children. A 7-week open clinical trial of levodopa (0.55 mg/kg, three times daily) with 25% carbidopa combined with part-time occlusion (3 hours/day), was undertaken in 15 older (mean age, 8.87 years) amblyopic children. Visual acuity, fusion, and stereo acuity were measured at baseline, at weeks 1, 3, 5, and 7 during treatment, and 6 weeks following the end of all treatment. Health status was assessed by physical examination, questionnaire, and standard laboratory tests (CHEM 20, complete blood cell count [CBC], and differential). The results revealed that visual acuity in the amblyopic eye improved for 5 weeks, from 20/170 at baseline to 20/107, then stabilized for the last 2 weeks. Visual acuity also improved in the dominant eye by 0.6 lines, from 20/19 to 20/16. At the 6-week follow up, visual acuity in the amblyopic eye remained at 20/107 (paired t = 4.78, df = 14, P < .001), a 37% improvement. Thirty-three percent of the subjects demonstrated improved fusion from baseline to the 7-week trial that was maintained at follow up (chi 2 = 3.97, P < .05). Stereo acuity did not significantly change. Physical exam (blood pressure, body temperature, respiration, heart rate) and standard laboratory tests remained normal and side effects were minimal.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Levodopa/carbidopa treatment for amblyopia in older children.

Purpose. To evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of two low doses of levodopa/carbidopa (25/ 6.25 mg, 50/12.5 mg) and placebo (Turns) in 20 children with amblyopia between the ages of 4 and 14 years. Methods. A double-masked placebo-controlled randomized 8-hour study was performed during which subjects received one of two doses of levodopa/carbidopa or placebo, combined with occlusion of the dominant eye. Visual acuity was measured at baseline and at 1 and 5 hours after capsule ingestion. Tolerance was assessed by questionnaire and physical examination. Results. Visual acuity significantly improved by one line, from an overall average of 20/121 to 20/96, in the amblyopic eyes of both groups that received levodopa/carbidopa. Visual acuity did not significantly change in the placebo group. Tolerance was similar among all three groups. Conclusion. Average dose levels of 0.95/0.24 mg/kg and 1.94/0.49 mg/kg of levodopa/carbidopa were found to be well tolerated and efficacious at temporarily improving visual acuity in amblyopic eyes of children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 1993;34:3090-3095.

Levodopa/carbidopa for childhood amblyopia

To determine the tolerability and efficacy of levodopa/carbidopa combined with occlusion therapy for childhood amblyopia, a double-masked placebo-controlled randomized longitudinal study was performed on 10 amblyopic children between 6 and 14 years of age. Subjects received, on average, 20/5 mg levodopa/carbidopa or 20 mg of placebo three times per day combined with part-time occlusion over a 3-week period. Visual function was assessed by Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) visual acuity charts and by contrast sensitivity. Tolerability was assessed by questionnaire, SMAC (standard laboratory tests; consists of a chem 20 and complete blood count [CBC]) analysis, and physical examination. Compliance with occlusion and capsule consumption were assessed by questionnaire and by capsule count, respectively. At the end of the dosing regimen, the levodopa/carbidopa group significantly improved in visual acuity by 2.7 lines and in mean contrast sensitivity by 72% in the amblyopic eye. The placebo group improved in visual acuity by 1.6 lines in the amblyopic eye. Tolerability and occlusion compliance were similar between groups; however, capsule ingestion compliance was significantly lower in the levodopa/carbidopa group. One month after the termination of treatment, the levodopa/carbidopa group maintained a significant 1.2-line improvement in visual acuity and 74% improvement in contrast sensitivity in the amblyopic eye. The placebo group did not maintain an improvement in visual acuity between the eyes. It is concluded that levodopa/carbidopa, at an average of 0.48/0.12 mg/kg, is well tolerated and, when combined with part-time occlusion, is efficacious in improving visual function in amblyopic children.

Longitudinal study of levodopa/carbidopa for childhood amblyopia.

A pilot study was undertaken to address the tolerance and efficacy of levodopa/carbidopa treatment for amblyopia in older amblyopic children who failed to respond to conventional occlusion therapy. Five amblyopic children, between the ages of 7 and 12 years, and two normal adults were given between 100 mg/25 mg and 400 mg/100 mg of levodopa/carbidopa, respectively, depending on body weight. A symptoms questionnaire was completed, with temperature, respiration, heart rate, and blood pressure taken periodically to assess tolerance. Blood samples were taken, via a heparin well, to assess the pharmacokinetics of levodopa, dopamine, noradrenaline, and DOPAC. Snellen visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, stereo acuity, and pattern VERs were measured periodically to assess efficacy. The results revealed a high prevalence of side effects including emesis and nausea (four of seven subjects). Pharmacokinetics revealed that maximum serum levels of levodopa occurred 30 minutes to 1 hour after drug ingestion and decreased by 50% after 2 to 4 hours. One hour after drug ingestion, Snellen visual acuity temporarily improved from an average of 20/159 to 20/83 in the amblyopic eyes. Contrast sensitivity and pattern VERs (10-minute checks) temporarily improved in both dominant and amblyopic eyes, whereas visual function remained stable in normal eyes. The improvements in visual function started to decrease 5 hours after drug ingestion. The results are discussed in the context of developing a therapeutic trial of levodopa/carbidopa for childhood amblyopia.

Levodopa and childhood amblyopia.

Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to compare the effects of levodopa-carbidopa with and without part-time occlusion on visual function in older amblyopic children. Methods: Thirteen older amblyopic children were randomly assigned to receive or not receive part-time occlusion (3 h/day) combined with 7 weeks of oral dosing with levodopa-carbidopa (1.02 mg/0.25 mg/kg body weight three times daily). Visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, and fusion were measured at baseline; 1, 3, 5, and 7 weeks during the treatment regimen; and 4 weeks after termination of all treatment. At these same times health status was assessed with standard laboratory blood tests, physical examination, and subjective questionnaire. Results: From baseline to the follow-up test trial, both groups improved in visual acuity in the amblyopic eyes (occlusion group 20116 to 2076, P .05; no occlusion group 2020 to 2016, P < .01). The occlusion group exhibited a significant decrease in the difference in acuity between the dominant and amblyopic eyes of 1.3 lines (P < .02), whereas the no occlusion group revealed no significant effect. A comparison between groups revealed a significantly greater improvement in visual acuity in the amblyopic eye in the occlusion group compared with the no occlusion group (P = .01). In contrast, there was no significant difference between groups in terms of the change in visual acuity in the dominant eye (P = .15). Mean log contrast sensitivity in the amblyopic eye significantly improved in the occlusion group and did not significantly change in the no occlusion group. Fusion changed similarly in both groups. The improvements in visual function were maintained 4 weeks after the termination of all treatment. Adverse side effects were minimal in both groups. Conclusion: The combination of levodopa-carbidopa and occlusion improves visual function more than levodopa-carbidopa alone in older amblyopic children.

Occlusion and levodopa-carbidopa treatment for childhood amblyopia

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Lawrence E. Leguire

Author Tools

Chat about Author