Brief daily binocular vision prevents monocular deprivation effects in visual cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even short periods of early monocular deprivation result in reduced cortical representation and visual acuity of the deprived eye. However, we have shown recently that the dramatic deprivation effects on vision can be prevented entirely if the animal receives a brief period of concordant binocular vision each day. We examine here the extent to which the cortical deprivation effects can be counteracted by daily periods of normal experience. Cats received variable daily regimens of monocular deprivation (by wearing a mask) and binocular vision. We subsequently assessed visual cortex function with optical imaging of intrinsic signals and visually evoked potential recordings. Regardless of the overall length of visual experience, daily binocular vision for as little as 30 min, but no less, allowed normal ocular dominance and visual responses to be maintained despite several times longer periods of deprivation. Thus, the absolute amount of daily binocular vision rather than its relative share of the daily exposure determined the outcome. When 30 min of binocular exposure was broken up into two 15-min blocks flanking the deprivation period, ocular dominance resembled that of animals with only 15 min of binocular vision, suggesting that binocular experience must be continuous to be most effective. Our results demonstrate that normal experience is clearly more efficacious in maintaining normal functional architecture of the visual cortex than abnormal experience is in altering it. The beneficial effects of very short periods of binocular vision may prevent any long-term effects (amblyopia) from brief periods of compromised vision through injury or infection during development.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".