MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Dichoptic Adaptation on Frequency-Doubling Perimetry

2002· article· en· W2037789064 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Anderson, Chris A. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair Discoveries
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)OptometryOphthalmologyAudiologyMedicinePsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In frequency-doubling technology (FDT) perimetry, the second eye tested has reduced sensitivity. We investigated the cause of this sensitivity reduction. METHODS: Contrast sensitivity was measured for frequency doubling (0.25 cpd, 25 Hz) and nonflickering (4 cpd) gratings, arranged similarly to the targets in the FDT perimeter (Welch Allyn, Skaneateles Falls, NY, and Humphrey Instruments, San Leandro, CA). Various test orders were examined. RESULTS: Frequency-doubling (FD) sensitivity was reduced (0.15 log) in the second eye. A similar reduction occurred when first and second eye gratings were oriented orthogonally, suggesting that dichoptic contrast adaptation was not the cause. FD sensitivity was little affected after testing with nonflickering gratings, suggesting that fatigue effects were small. Sensitivity was reduced when testing was performed after 5 min of opaque occlusion. The use of a translucent occluder eliminated the reduction in sensitivity in the second eye. CONCLUSION: We confirm the presence of reduced sensitivity in the second eye tested with FD perimetry and find that it is caused by delayed light adaptation post-occlusion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.435 · 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

Citations35
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOphthalmology and Visual Impairment StudiesFrench-language works237,207