Second-Order Optic Flow Deficits in Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Amblyopic observers show deficits for global motion discrimination that cannot be accounted for by their contrast sensitivity impairment. The processing of first- and second-order translational global motion is deficient, as is the processing of first-order optic flow, suggesting that cortical function in extrastriate areas is impaired. The authors sought to determine whether amblyopes show impairment in the processing of optic flow defined by second-order motion, whether these deficits are comparable in the two eyes, and whether these deficits are correlated with first-order deficits. METHODS: Eight amblyopic subjects (three strabismic, three strabismic-anisometropic, one anisometropic, one deprivation; mean age, 29 years) were tested. The authors used random dot kinematograms in which the dots were luminance or contrast modulations of background noise. The global pattern of dot motion within the stimulus area was translational, radial, or rotational. Coherence thresholds for direction discrimination were obtained across a range of dot modulation depths, allowing the separation of contrast and motion deficits. RESULTS: The present study showed that deficits in second-order optic flow processing were equivalent to those for first-order stimuli and that these were unrelated to the extent of the amblyopic contrast sensitivity deficit and were comparable in both eyes. Radial optic flow was more affected than rotational optic flow. CONCLUSIONS: Global motion impairment appeared to have a high-level binocular locus and was independent of the depth of the contrast deficit. Results also support the idea that global motion and optic flow processing are form-cue invariant.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".