MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Developmental plasticity of mouse visual acuity

2003· article· en· W1976250189 on OpenAlexaff
Glen T. Prusky, Robert M. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonocular deprivationOcular dominanceVisual cortexVisual acuitySensory deprivationMonocularNeuroplasticityPsychologyBinocular visionDevelopmental plasticityNeuroscienceOphthalmologyPlasticityMedicineSensory systemOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monocular deprivation in mice between postnatal days 19 and 32 has been reported to significantly shift ocular dominance within the binocular region of primary visual cortex; however, it is not known whether visual deprivation in mice during this physiologically defined critical period also results in amblyopia, as it does in other mammals. We addressed this uncertainty by psychophysically assessing in adulthood (postnatal day 70 or older) the grating acuity of normal and monocularly deprived mice, using the Visual Water Task. The visual acuity of mice tested with their nondeprived eyes was equivalent to that of normal mice ( approximately 0.5 cycles/degree); however, acuity measured with eyes monocularly deprived of vision transiently between postnatal days 19 and 32 was reduced by over 30% ( approximately 0.31 cycles/degree). Identical binocular deprivation produced a significant, but smaller, decrease in acuity ( approximately 0.38 cycles/degree). The effects of monocular and binocular deprivation were long lasting and occurred only if visual deprivation occurred between postnatal days 19 and 32. These data indicate that the deleterious effects of early visual deprivation on visual acuity in mice are similar to those reported in other mammals, and together with electrophysiological evidence of ocular dominance plasticity, suggest that the mechanisms of mouse visual plasticity are fundamentally the same as that in other mammals. Therefore, the mouse is probably a good model for investigating the basic cellular and molecular mechanisms underlying visual developmental plasticity and 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations203
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology ResearchFrench-language works237,207