MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025666603 · doi:10.1167/iovs.12-10835

Temporal Synchrony Deficits in Amblyopia

2012· article· en· W2025666603 on OpenAlexafffund
Pi‐Chun Huang, Jinrong Li, Daming Deng, Minbin Yu, Robert F. Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsFovealAnisometropiaAudiologyFlickerContrast (vision)Visual cortexPeripheral visionPsychologyMathematicsOpticsPhysicsVisual acuityOphthalmologyMedicineComputer scienceNeuroscienceRefractive errorRetinal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Amblyopia is a developmental abnormality of visual cortex characterized by spatial processing deficits. Recently, it has been suggested that temporal processing also is affected. We investigated temporal sensitivity by measuring temporal synchrony sensitivity. METHODS: In Experiment 1, we used a contrast detection task to compare the detection of a flickering 3 Hz Gaussian blob to that of synchrony discrimination for a 180° phase shift. In Experiment 2, we measured synchrony thresholds directly by assessing the minimum degree of asynchrony that allowed subjects to discriminate which of 4 high-contrast Gaussian blobs was flickering asynchronously in time (synchrony thresholds). Three temporal frequencies (1, 2, and 3 Hz) and two element separations (1.25° and 5°) were compared. RESULTS: In Experiment 1, we found that the amblyopes (mean age 19.90 ± 8.59 years, range 11-48 years) exhibited a synchrony deficit only for the 1.25 degrees element separation in the amblyopic eye. In Experiment 2, we also found that the sensitivity for nonstrabismic (pure anismetropia) amblyopes (mean age 15.70 ± 4.00 years, range 12-23 years) was reduced for all three temporal frequencies, whereas for strabismic (strabismus and anisometropia) amblyopes (mean age 24.10 ± 10.03 years, range 11-48 years) it was reduced at 3 Hz only, possibly suggesting a different extent of impairment in temporal synchrony for different types of amblyopia. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that amblyopes have a foveal low-level temporal processing deficit that could explain the previously reported deficit for figure-ground discrimination.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual ScienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207