Protection against deprivation amblyopia depends on relative not absolute daily binocular exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short daily periods of binocular exposure (BE) can offset longer single daily episodes of monocular exposure (ME) to prevent the development of deprivation amblyopia. To determine whether the outcome depended upon an absolute daily amount of BE or its proportion of the daily visual exposure, daily mixed visual input of 3 different durations (3.5, 7, or 12 h) was imposed on 3 cohorts of kittens. Measurements of the visual acuity of the deprived eye at the end of mixed daily visual input revealed that the acuity of the deprived eye developed to normal values so long as the proportion of the total exposure that was binocular was 30% or more. By contrast, the development of functional ocular dominance domains in V1 revealed by optical imaging suggests that normal domains emerge with a fixed amount of daily binocular exposure. The latter result is consistent with the effects of any daily period of ME, or BE, or both, effectively saturating with a small dose so that the effects of ME of any length can be offset by a short period of BE. The different result for vision may reflect neural events at higher and/or multiple levels in the visual pathway.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".