4.6 Article

Ocular-following responses in school-age children

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277443

关键词

-

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health [2764554]
  2. Intramural Research Program of the National Eye Institute

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ocular following eye movements can reliably reveal stereoanomalies and have potential clinical applications. This study recorded ocular following responses in 14 school-age children and found that the ocular following system is well developed by age six.
Ocular following eye movements have provided insights into how the visual system of humans and monkeys processes motion. Recently, it has been shown that they also reliably reveal stereoanomalies, and, thus, might have clinical applications. Their translation from research to clinical setting has however been hindered by their small size, which makes them difficult to record, and by a lack of data about their properties in sizable populations. Notably, they have so far only been recorded in adults. We recorded ocular following responses (OFRs)-defined as the change in eye position in the 80-160 ms time window following the motion onset of a large textured stimulus-in 14 school-age children (6 to 13 years old, 9 males and 5 females), under recording conditions that closely mimic a clinical setting. The OFRs were acquired non-invasively by a custom developed high-resolution video-oculography system, described in this study. With the developed system we were able to non-invasively detect OFRs in all children in short recording sessions. Across subjects, we observed a large variability in the magnitude of the movements (by a factor of 4); OFR magnitude was however not correlated with age. A power analysis indicates that even considerably smaller movements could be detected. We conclude that the ocular following system is well developed by age six, and OFRs can be recorded non-invasively in young children in a clinical setting.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据