A special role for binocular visual input during development and as a component of occlusion therapy for treatment of amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To review work on animal models of deprivation amblyopia that points to a special role for binocular visual input in the development of spatial vision and as a component of occlusion (patching) therapy for amblyopia. METHODS: The studies reviewed employ behavioural methods to measure the effects of various early experiential manipulations on the development of the visual acuity of the two eyes. RESULTS: Short periods of concordant binocular input, if continuous, can offset much longer daily periods of monocular deprivation to allow the development of normal visual acuity in both eyes. It appears that the visual system does not weigh all visual input equally in terms of its ability to impact on the development of vision but instead places greater weight on concordant binocular exposure. Experimental models of patching therapy for amblyopia imposed on animals in which amblyopia had been induced by a prior period of early monocular deprivation, indicate that the benefits of patching therapy may be only temporary and decline rapidly after patching is discontinued. However, when combined with critical amounts of binocular visual input each day, the benefits of patching can be both heightened and made permanent. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together with demonstrations of retained binocular connections in the visual cortex of monocularly deprived animals, a strong argument is made for inclusion of specific training of stereoscopic vision for part of the daily periods of binocular exposure that should be incorporated as part of any patching protocol for amblyopia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".