MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037070812 · doi:10.1076/stra.10.2.129.8140

High resolution fMRI of ocular dominance columns within the visual cortex of human amblyopes

2002· article· en· W2037070812 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley G. Goodyear, David A. Nicolle, Ravi S. Menon

Bibliographic record

VenueStrabismus · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsOcular dominance columnOcular dominanceVisual cortexFunctional magnetic resonance imagingDominance (genetics)NeuroimagingNeuroscienceStriate cortexHuman brainPsychologyOphthalmologyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-human primate models suggest that amblyopia has a neural basis in the form of a massive reduction in binocular neurons, and in some cases, a shift in ocular dominance of neural activity toward the unaffected eye. To date, the resolution of neuroimaging has been insufficient to investigate the neural basis of ocular dominance in human amblyopia. We used high spatial resolution (0.5 x 0.5 x 3 mm) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to obtain maps of ocular dominance within the visual cortex of adult human amblyopes. fMRI maps of ocular dominance were similar in appearance to maps reported in the literature. For each of six adults with early-onset amblyopia, the number of map pixels corresponding to the unaffected eye was greater than the number corresponding to the amblyopic eye. This shift in ocular dominance was not seen for the two adults with later-onset amblyopia, suggesting that a shift in ocular dominance of neural activity occurs only if amblyopia onset is within the critical period of brain development. Our findings demonstrate how fMRI can non-invasively investigate the neural substrates underlying human amblyopia at the cortical column level.

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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations61
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStrabismusSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207