MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028053921 · doi:10.1167/iovs.05-0242

A Residual Deficit for Global Motion Processing after Acuity Recovery in Deprivation Amblyopia

2005· article· en· W2028053921 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Constantinescu, Laura L Schmidt, R. S. Watson, Robert F. Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueInvestigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Sensory deprivationVisual acuityAudiologyNeurosciencePsychologyMedicineOphthalmologySensory systemCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: In a case of bilateral deprivation amblyopia due to congenital cataracts, the global motion sensitivity for stimuli that were well within the passband of the amblyopic visual system were assessed. METHODS: A stochastic global motion stimulus was used, comprising spatially narrow elements with varied spatial frequency, density, contrast, and area distribution. To determine threshold, a two-alternate, forced-choice direction discrimination task was used. RESULTS: There was a selective deficit for global motion processing that was not due to the visibility of the stimuli and was nonselective for spatial scale. The eye with the more complete recovery (acuity 20/20) from pattern deprivation in childhood exhibited the more severe global motion deficit. discussion. The results suggest a primary extrastriate deficit in the dorsal pathway, possibly involving the middle temporal (MT) and the medial superior temporal (MST) cortical areas, that is unrelated to the acuity deficit thought to be in area V1. A similar deficit has recently been shown in strabismic amblyopia.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations43
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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