Disrupted Retinotopic Maps in Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The amblyopic visual system exhibits both positional inaccuracy (uncertainty) and systematic biases (distortion). The fidelity of the retinotopic representation of the visual field driven by the amblyopic eye was studied for each of these aspects of position coding by using a dichoptic position-matching task. METHOD: Fifteen patients with amblyopia and five normal subjects were tested. The stimuli were luminance-defined Gaussian blobs that were presented within a circle of 15 degrees diameter. Each Gaussian blob was seen only by the amblyopic eye. Moving a mouse marker seen only by the fellow fixing eye (perceptual matching measure), each subject had to localize the position of previously presented targets. RESULTS: The results confirm previous findings that there is significant distortion in the maps of the central visual field in amblyopic subjects. However, the uncertainty measure did not correlate with the measured distortion in amblyopic maps nor with the visual acuity. Also, regional analysis of the data showed that the distortion occurred heterogeneously in different parts of the visual field and had no relationship to the associated strabismus. CONCLUSIONS: The underlying explanations for these three visual deficits-inaccuracy, distortion, and acuity loss-may be different.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".