Ganglion Cell Loss and Age‐Related Visual Loss: A Cortical Pooling Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the ability of the cortical pooling model to predict the effects of random, mild ganglion cell loss, we compared the predictions of the model with the age-related loss and variability in achromatic and chromatic contrast sensitivity. METHODS: The relative sensitivity to small (0.5 degrees ) and large (3.0 degrees ) stimuli was compared in older (mean = 67 years, n = 27) and younger (mean = 23 years, n = 32) adults. Contrast sensitivity for modulations along the luminance, equiluminant L-cone, and equiluminant S-cone axes was assessed at the fovea and at four peripheral locations (12 degrees ). RESULTS: When the stimuli were large, threshold measurements obtained from all participants were reliable and well within the range of modulations along the chromatic axes that could be produced by the phosphors of the CRT. For the large stimuli, neither long- nor short-term variability increased as a function of age. Increasing the size of the stimulus did not decrease the magnitude of the age-related losses when the stimulus was chromatic, and visual losses observed with large chromatic stimuli were not different from those obtained with small achromatic stimuli. Moreover, chromatic contrast sensitivity assessments identified significant visual losses in four individuals who were not identified by achromatic contrast sensitivity assessments and only missed identifying one individual with significant losses in achromatic contrast sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: The declines in achromatic and chromatic sensitivity as a function of age (0.4-0.7 dB per decade) were similar to those obtained in previous studies of achromatic and chromatic perimetry and are consistent with the loss of retinal ganglion cells reported in histologic studies. The results of this study are consistent with the predictions the cortical pooling model makes for both variability and contrast sensitivity. These findings emphasize that selective visual impairments do not necessarily reflect preferential damage to a single ganglion cell class and that it is important to include the influence of higher cortical processing when quantifying the relation between ganglion cells and visual function.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".