An examination of linking hypotheses drawn from the perceptual consequences of experimentally induced changes in neural circuitry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because targeted early experiential manipulations alter both perception and the response properties of particular cells in the striate cortex, they have been used as evidence for linking hypotheses between the two. However, such hypotheses assume that the effects of the early biased visual input are restricted to just the specific cell population and/or visual areas of interest and that the neural populations that contribute to the visual perception itself do not change. To examine this assumption, we measured the consequences for vision of an extended period of early monocular deprivation (MD) on a kitten (from 19 to 219 days of age) that began well before, and extended beyond, bilateral ablation of visual cortical areas 17 and 18 at 132 days of age. In agreement with previous work, the lesion reduced visual acuity by only a factor of two indicating that the neural sites, other than cortical areas 17 and 18, that support vision in their absence have good spatial resolution. However, these sites appear to be affected profoundly by MD as the effects on vision were just as severe as those observed following MD imposed on normal animals. The pervasive effects of selected early visual deprivation across many cortical areas reported here and elsewhere, together with the potential for perception to be mediated at a different neural site following deprivation than after typical rearing, points to a need for caution in the use of data from early experiential manipulations for formulation of linking hypotheses.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".