Binocular visual training to promote recovery from monocular deprivation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abnormal early visual experience often leads to poor vision, a condition called amblyopia. Two recent approaches to treating amblyopia include binocular therapies and intensive visual training. These reflect the emerging view that amblyopia is a binocular deficit caused by increased neural noise and poor signal-in-noise integration. Most perceptual learning studies have used monocular training; however, a recent study has shown that binocular training is effective for improving acuity in adult human amblyopes. We used an animal model of amblyopia, based on monocular deprivation, to compare the effect of binocular training either during or after the critical period for ocular dominance plasticity (early binocular training vs. late binocular training). We used a high-contrast, orientation-in-noise stimulus to drive the visual cortex because neurophysiological findings suggest that binocular training may allow the nondeprived eye to teach the deprived eye's circuits to function. We found that both early and late binocular training promoted good visual recovery. Surprisingly, we found that monocular deprivation caused a permanent deficit in the vision of both eyes, which became evident only as a sleeper effect following many weeks of visual training.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it