A Limited Role for Suppression in the Central Field of Individuals with Strabismic Amblyopia.

yesBackground: Although their eyes are pointing in different directions, people with long-standing strabismic amblyopia typically do not experience double-vision or indeed any visual symptoms arising from their condition. It is generally believed that the phenomenon of suppression plays a major role in dealing with the consequences of amblyopia and strabismus, by preventing images from the weaker/deviating eye from reaching conscious awareness. Suppression is thus a highly sophisticated coping mechanism. Although suppression has been studied for over 100 years the literature is equivocal in relation to the extent of the retina that is suppressed, though the method used to investigate suppression is crucial to the outcome. There is growing evidence that some measurement methods lead to artefactual claims that suppression exists when it does not. Methodology/Results: Here we present the results of an experiment conducted with a new method to examine the prevalence, depth and extent of suppression in ten individuals with strabismic amblyopia. Seven subjects (70%) showed no evidence whatsoever for suppression and in the three individuals who did (30%), the depth and extent of suppression was small. Conclusions: Suppression may play a much smaller role in dealing with the negative consequences of strabismic amblyopia than previously thought. Whereas recent claims of this nature have been made only in those with micro-strabismus our results show extremely limited evidence for suppression across the central visual field in strabismic amblyopes more generally. Instead of suppressing the image from the weaker/deviating eye, we suggest the visual system of individuals with strabismic amblyopia may act to maximise the possibilities for binocular co-operation. This is consistent with recent evidence from strabismic and amblyopic individuals that their binocular mechanisms are intact, and that, just as in visual normals, performance with two eyes is better than with the better eye alone in these individuals

A technique to train new oculomotor behavior in patients with central macular scotomas during reading related tasks using scanning laser ophthalmoscopy: immediate functional benefits and gains retention

BACKGROUND: Reading with a central scotoma involves the use of preferred retinal loci (PRLs) that enable both letter resolution and global viewing of word. Spontaneously developed PRLs however often privilege spatial resolution and, as a result, visual span is commonly limited by the position of the scotoma. In this study we designed and performed the pilot trial of a training procedure aimed at modifying oculomotor behavior in subjects with central field loss. We use an additional fixation point which, when combined with the initial PRL, allows the fulfillment of both letter resolution and global viewing of words. METHODS: The training procedure comprises ten training sessions conducted with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO). Subjects have to read single letters and isolated words varying in length, by combining the use of their initial PRL with the one of an examiner's selected trained retinal locus (TRL). We enrolled five subjects to test for the feasibility of the training technique. They showed stable maculopathy and persisting major reading difficulties despite previous orthoptic rehabilitation. We evaluated ETDRS visual acuity, threshold character size for single letters and isolated words, accuracy for paragraphed text reading and reading strategies before, immediately after SLO training, and three months later. RESULTS: Training the use of multiple PRLs in patients with central field loss is feasible and contributes to adapt oculomotor strategies during reading related tasks. Immediately after SLO training subjects used in combination with their initial PRL the examiner's selected TRL and other newly self-selected PRLs. Training gains were also reflected in ETDRS acuity, threshold character size for words of different lengths and in paragraphed text reading. Interestingly, subjects benefited variously from the training procedure and gains were retained differently as a function of word length. CONCLUSION: We designed a new procedure for training patients with central field loss using scanning laser ophthalmoscopy. Our initial results on the acquisition of newly self-selected PRLs and the development of new oculomotor behaviors suggest that the procedure aiming primarily at developing an examiner's selected TRL might have initiated a more global functional adaptation process

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review [version 2; referees: 2 approved]

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments

A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review

Peer review of research articles is a core part of our scholarly communication system. In spite of its importance, the status and purpose of peer review is often contested. What is its role in our modern digital research and communications infrastructure? Does it perform to the high standards with which it is generally regarded? Studies of peer review have shown that it is prone to bias and abuse in numerous dimensions, frequently unreliable, and can fail to detect even fraudulent research. With the advent of web technologies, we are now witnessing a phase of innovation and experimentation in our approaches to peer review. These developments prompted us to examine emerging models of peer review from a range of disciplines and venues, and to ask how they might address some of the issues with our current systems of peer review. We examine the functionality of a range of social Web platforms, and compare these with the traits underlying a viable peer review system: quality control, quantified performance metrics as engagement incentives, and certification and reputation. Ideally, any new systems will demonstrate that they out-perform and reduce the biases of existing models as much as possible. We conclude that there is considerable scope for new peer review initiatives to be developed, each with their own potential issues and advantages. We also propose a novel hybrid platform model that could, at least partially, resolve many of the socio-technical issues associated with peer review, and potentially disrupt the entire scholarly communication system. Success for any such development relies on reaching a critical threshold of research community engagement with both the process and the platform, and therefore cannot be achieved without a significant change of incentives in research environments