Recovering sight in adulthood leads to rapid neurofunctional reorganization of visual functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual deprivation is associated to crossmodal reorganization, leading to the recruitment of the visual cortex for non-visual processing (Bavelier & Neville, 2002). Because of important advances in visual restoration techniques, a crucial question concerns if, how and at what speed the brain of sight-recovery individuals can re-acquire its function to process visual inputs. We used behavioral measures and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to explore the potential neuro-functional modifications taking place in the visual cortex of a low-vision (i.e. legally blind) patient (female, 41) before and after partial vision restoration with Boston keratoprosthesis (Dagher & Dohlman, 2008). Behavioral tasks consisted of computerized tests evaluating visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, face perception and global motion perception. Each fMRI session comprised two runs testing the integrity of a key aspect of the ventral (i.e. face perception) and the dorsal (i.e. motion perception) visual pathways. In order to test for crossmodal reorganization, homologous conditions in the auditory modality were also included (i.e. voices in the ventral run; moving sounds in the dorsal run). The patient was tested 6 days before and 3 days following surgery with identical behavioral and fMRI tasks. In parallel to behavioral improvements, fMRI analyses contrasting differential activations before and after visual restoration revealed massive changes in brain responses. Specifically, we found (1) unspecific activity in the occipital cortex for auditory processing pre-surgery, which was reversed (deactivation) post-surgery; (2) enhanced functional tuning to faces in the right ventral visual pathway (fusiform and occipital "face areas", FFA and OFA) after visual restoration and; (3) reduced responses to motion in V5 bilaterally after visual restoration. These observations provide compelling evidence that the human brain maintains a high degree of plasticity well into adulthood, and that the ventral and dorsal visual pathways might be differently affected by visual deprivation and restoration. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".