MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2012810112 · doi:10.1167/14.10.1236

The effects of inter-ocular contrast differences on binocular rivalry in younger and older observers

2014· article· en· W2012810112 on OpenAlexaff
A. M. Beers, Allison B. Sekuler, Patrick Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinocular rivalryOcular dominanceContrast (vision)AudiologyMonocularPsychologyPerceptStimulus (psychology)Binocular visionYoung adultPerceptionDevelopmental psychologyVisual perceptionMedicineOpticsVisual cortexCognitive psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beers et al. (VSS 2013) demonstrated that monocular dominance (MD) during binocular rivalry increases significantly with aging. Age differences in optical factors, such as sensitivity to inter-ocular contrast differences could provide an explanation. To investigate potential age-related changes in MD, we measured binocular rivalry in younger (aged 20-28) and older (aged 70-79) adults using pairs of orthogonal, oblique sine wave gratings that differed in contrast. In baseline conditions, rivalry was measured with equal stimulus contrasts (0.2 or 0.8) presented to both eyes. In the test condition, stimulus contrast was 0.2 in one eye and 0.8 in the other eye, with the eye viewing the higher contrast counter-balanced across trials. During each trial, participants reported their perceptual state by pressing buttons on a response box (the two exclusive percepts, mixed, and fading). MD was defined as the difference between the proportion of time a participant reported seeing each exclusive percept. MD in the baseline conditions was significantly greater in older than younger adults, supporting our previous findings. However, MD did not differ between age groups in the test condition. The introduction of an inter-ocular contrast difference of 0.6 caused MD to increase significantly in younger adults, whereas the contrast difference had an insignificant effect in older adults who already had shown strong MD in baseline conditions. A follow-up experiment measured binocular rivalry in younger adults with a wider range of inter-ocular contrast differences: 0, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.6. A contrast difference of 0.4 was needed to produce a level of MD that was approximately equivalent to that found in older adults with contrast-matched stimuli. These results demonstrate that a large difference in inter-ocular contrast is required to produce MD in younger adults that is equivalent to the MD found in older adults, suggesting neural changes in binocular vision with aging. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→