MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009025568 · doi:10.3357/asem.3507.2013

Simulated Night Vision Goggle Wear and Colored Aftereffects

2013· article· en· W2009025568 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffery K. Hovis, Nicolas Pilecki

Bibliographic record

VenueAviation Space and Environmental Medicine · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfterimageColor visionAdaptation (eye)AudiologyColoredOptometryPsychologyOpticsMedicineComputer visionComputer scienceMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Surveys of military pilots report that between 1.6% and 65% of the respondents experienced altered color vision after night vision goggle (NVG) wear. For the majority of these pilots, the aftereffect was a brownish afterimage that lasted less than 10 min. Given the large disparity in the surveys, we asked subjects to wear goggles which simulated NVGs to determine the nature and duration of any color aftereffects after removing the goggles. METHODS: Two separate experiments were conducted after wearing the goggles for 30 continuous minutes. The first measured the adaptation effects on color appearance by determining the spectral locations of unique blue and unique yellow. The second measured the adaptation effects on color discrimination using the Lanthony Desaturated D15 (Desat D15) color vision test. RESULTS: The location of unique blue shifted to a longer wavelength by 4 nm immediately after removing the goggles and returned to baseline by 12 min post-wear. The unique yellow location was unaffected by the color aftereffect. In the second experiment, the time to complete the Desat D15 was 13% longer than baseline for the first 6 min post-wear. There was also a decrease in the frequency of errors relative to baseline. Only one subject reported an afterimage in either experiment. CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that the color aftereffects were subtle and unlikely to cause major color vision problems. The time course of the color aftereffect in this experiment resembled short-term adaptation effects.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAviation Space and Environmental MedicineSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207