The Perceptual Consequences of Interocular Suppression in Amblyopia
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
PURPOSE: It is known that information from an amblyopic eye can be strongly suppressed when both eyes are open. The authors investigated the way in which suppression influences the relative perception of suprathreshold contrast and luminance between a person's eyes under dichoptic viewing conditions. METHODS: Stimuli consisted of four patches of luminance or four patches containing gratings. Two patches were presented to each eye. Ten amblyopes with mild suppression (six strabismic, three anisometropic and strabismic, and one deprivation; mean age, 34.5 years) and three control observers with normal vision (mean age, 33.0 years) matched the appearance of the stimuli presented to each eye. The match involved manipulation of either luminance or contrast. RESULTS: Amblyopes with mild suppression decreased stimulus luminance in the fellow fixing eye or increased luminance in the amblyopic eye to achieve a match (mean matching luminance, 21.1 and 39.6 cd/m(2) for the fellow fixing eye and the amblyopic eye, respectively; standard luminance, 30 cd/m(2)). This interocular mismatch was also observed when luminance was variable and contrast was kept constant (mean matching luminance, 22.8 cd/m(2) for the fellow fixing eye). On the other hand, the amblyopic eye showed no loss of perceived contrast. There was little or no mismatch between the two eyes of control participants with normal binocular vision. CONCLUSIONS: Amblyopes have monocular deficits in contrast perception but dichoptic deficits in luminance perception, suggesting that suppression in its mild form involves luminance processing.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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