MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041908484 · doi:10.1097/opx.0b013e318240488e

Impaired Face Processing in Early Monocular Deprivation from Enucleation

2011· article· en· W2041908484 on OpenAlexafffund
Krista R. Kelly, Brenda L. Gallie, Jennifer K. E. Steeves

Bibliographic record

VenueOptometry and Vision Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicOcular Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCNIB FoundationCanada Foundation for InnovationYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersCanada Foundation for InnovationBanting Research Foundation
KeywordsFeature (linguistics)MonocularPerceptionPsychologyFace (sociological concept)Face perceptionVisual perceptionEnucleationFacial recognition systemVisual processingArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyAudiologyComputer visionOptometryComputer scienceMedicinePattern recognition (psychology)Neuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: We investigated the effects of early monocular enucleation (ME) (surgical removal of one eye) on a high-level spatial visual ability, namely face perception. Early monocular deprivation of pattern vision from disorders such as strabismus, amblyopia, or cataract is associated with impairments in low-level spatial vision. This is inconsistent with studies of early ME that show either equivalent or enhanced low-level spatial vision compared with controls. Impairments on some aspects of face perception (i.e., feature-spacing and holistic face processing, both of which mature later in life) have been found with early pattern deprivation from congenital cataract. It is not clear whether the intact low-level spatial vision with ME will also persist with high-level face perception or whether deficits similar to those found with cataract will emerge. METHODS: We tested individuals who have experienced early ME and controls on a series of high-level spatial visual tasks that measure feature-spacing, feature, and holistic face processing. RESULTS: The ME group were slower for feature spacing and feature tasks. Furthermore, the ME group did not exhibit the normal pattern of poorer performance on the aligned compared with misaligned composite face discrimination tasks, demonstrating a lack of the composite face effect. However, they did show the normal pattern of poorer performance on same vs. different trials on the aligned tasks. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate an impairment in the feature spacing and feature aspects of face perception with ME. They also suggest a present yet, incomplete, development of holistic face processing in this group. Although the complete removal of inhibitory binocular interactions and/or the absence of binocular competition in early ME may result in cortical reorganization of the visual system and preserve low- to mid-level spatial vision, it may be insufficient for the maturation of high-level face perception.

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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations24
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptometry and Vision ScienceSame topicOcular Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207