The fidelity of the cortical retinotopic map in human amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To delineate the fidelity of the functional cortical organization in humans with amblyopia, we undertook an investigation into how spatial information is mapped across the visual cortex in amblyopic observers. We assessed whether the boundaries of the visual areas controlled by the amblyopic and fellow fixing eye are in the same position, the fidelity of the retinotopic map within different cortical areas and the average receptive field size in different visual areas. The functional organization of the visual cortex was reconstructed using a fMRI phase-encoded retinotopic mapping analysis. This method sequentially stimulates each point in the visual field along the axes of a polar-coordinate system, thereby reconstructing the representation of the visual field on the cortex. We found that the cortical areas were very similar in normals and amblyopes, with only small differences in boundary positions of different visual areas between fixing and fellow amblyopic eye activation. Within these corresponding visual areas, we did find anomalies in retinotopy in some but not all amblyopes that were not simply a consequence of the poorer functional responses and affected central and peripheral field regions. Only a small increase in the average (or collective) receptive field size was found for full-field representation in amblyopes and none at all for central field representation. The former may simply be a consequence of the poorer functional responses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".