Eye-Movement Responses to Disparity Vergence Stimuli with Artificial Monocular Scotomas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of artificial monocular scotomas on eye-movement responses to horizontal disparity vergence stimuli were studied in six subjects with normal binocular vision. Subjects viewed stereoscopic 1.5 degrees horizontal step disparity vergence stimuli through liquid crystal shutter glasses. The central portion of the stimulus presented to the right eye was removed to simulate monocular artificial scotomas of variable diameters (2 degrees to 10 degrees ). Eye movements were recorded with a binocular head-mounted eye tracker. Responses included pure vergence, vergence followed by saccades, and pure saccadic eye movements. The rate of responses with saccadic eye movements increased with the diameter of the artificial scotoma (p < 0.0001); there was an increase in the rate of responses starting with saccades (p < 0.0001), as well as an increase in the rate of saccades after initial vergence responses (p < 0.01). The probability of saccades after initial vergence responses was affected by the open-loop gain of the vergence response (p < 0.001). The open-loop gain decreased with increased diameters of the artificial scotomas (p < 0.0001). As the diameter of the artificial scotomas increased, the amplitude of the initial vergence eye-movement responses decreased, and the prevalence of saccadic eye movements and asymmetric vergence increased. The effects of the diameter of artificial monocular scotomas on eye-movement responses in subjects with normal binocular vision are consistent with the effects of diameter of suppression scotomas on eye-movement responses to disparity vergence stimuli in patients with infantile esotropia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".