MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2037114189 · doi:10.1167/11.11.409

Examination of Anti-Suppression Therapy for Amblyopia

2011· article· en· W2037114189 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea K Globa, Behzad Mansouri, Pauline M. Pearson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStereoscopic acuityVisual acuityBinocular visionContrast (vision)AudiologyOptometryStereopsisPerceptual learningCrowdingPsychologySensory thresholdPerceptionDepth perceptionOphthalmologyMedicineOpticsPhysicsCognitive psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amblyopia, a developmental disorder associated with abnormal early visual experience, is defined by a deficit in visual acuity in the amblyopic eye (AE) which cannot be optically corrected. Although some research on amblyopes suggested visual information from the eyes is not combined, a growing body of studies report that binocular mechanisms are intact, but suppressed. Using dichoptic presentation of stimuli of relatively high and low contrasts to AE and non-AE, respectively, Hess et al. (2010, Optometry & Vision Science) demonstrated that binocular perceptual training can reduce suppression from the non-AE and improve visual acuity and stereoacuity. We examined the influence of binocular perceptual learning on the visual acuity, crowding, stereovision, binocular motion coherence thresholds, and binocular integration in five individuals with severe amblyopia. Binocular integration was measured as the contrast at which noise dots presented to the non-AE influenced the perception of the direction of motion of the signal dots in the AE. Initially, participants demonstrated visual acuity in the AE greater than 1.0 logMAR and nonmeasureable stereoacuity. Whereas 2 participants demonstrated suppression on the Worth 4-dot test, 4 participants evidenced suppression on the binocular integration task. After training on the binocular integration task for 20 to 24 hours, all participants reported better vision and increased ability to focus with the AE, which were supported by better visual acuity (t(4) = 14.3, p < 0.05) and less crowding (t(4) = 2.8, p < 0.05). In contrast, neither stereoacuity measured on the Randot tests nor suppression measured on the Worth 4-dot test improved. The influence of binocular perceptual training on binocular motion coherence thresholds and binocular integration evidenced individual variation. Our data are consistent with those of previous studies indicating that perceptual training can benefit adult amblyopes' visual experience.

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: Observational
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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→