MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019367593 · doi:10.1068/p7546

Alcohol and Lateral Inhibitory Interactions in Human Vision

2013· article· en· W2019367593 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Johnston, Brian Timney

Bibliographic record

VenuePerception · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsOntario Brain InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLateral inhibitionAlcoholIllusionInhibitory postsynaptic potentialAlcohol consumptionPerceptionOptical illusionContrast (vision)Mechanism (biology)PsychologyEthanolNeuroscienceChemistryComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePhysicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute alcohol consumption detrimentally affects many aspects of visual function, but few studies have addressed the neural mechanisms underlying such changes. One candidate mechanism that may be responsible for some alcohol-induced changes in visual function is lateral inhibition. Alcohol has been shown to abolish lateral inhibitory interactions in experimental preparations in which it is applied directly to the retina, but few studies have attempted to link alcohol-induced reductions in lateral inhibitory interactions with psychophysical performance in assessments of visual function dependent on this mechanism. In the present series of studies we addressed this by investigating the effects of alcohol consumption on a perceptual phenomenon mediated in part by lateral inhibition, the Hermann grid illusion. Participants estimated the contrast of the illusory blobs present at the grid intersections using a matching procedure after consumption of a drink containing alcohol or a nonalcoholic drink. The magnitude of the illusion was diminished in the alcohol condition, and this effect was consistent when we parametrically varied the contrast of the grid squares and widths of the grid bars. These data suggest that alcohol reduces lateral inhibitory interactions in human vision.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations21
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207