The effects of early pattern deprivation on the development of the ability to detect local motion and to discriminate its velocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose. To measure the effect of early pattern deprivation on the development of sensitivity to detect the presence of motion and to discriminate velocity. Methods. Subjects were patients treated for bilateral congenital cataract (duration of deprivation = 3.3 – 6.2 months; M = 4.4 mo), patients treated for unilateral congenital cataract who had patched their nondeprived eye 2 – 10 hrs/day throughout early childhood (duration of deprivation = 2.0 – 8.2 mo; M = 4.5 mo), and comparably aged normal controls (n = 9/grp). Subjects were at least 5 yrs old at the time of the test. We used a 10 deg Gabor and the method of limits to determine the minimum velocity required to detect movement. We used 10 × 10 deg patches of 1c/deg sine-wave gratings and a 2-alternative temporal forced-choice staircase procedure to measure the velocity that was just noticeably faster than 6 deg/sec. Results. One-way ANOVAs revealed that both unilaterally (p < 0.01) and bilaterally (p = 0.05) deprived patients needed a significantly greater velocity than controls in order to detect movement of the Gabor's carrier grating, with no significant difference between patient groups (p > 0.20). Patients did not detect the movement until the velocity was about double that required for the control subjects. However, patients had normal velocity discrimination thresholds (p > 0.40), with all groups requiring about a 34% increase in velocity to detect that the sine wave was moving faster than 6 deg/sec. Conclusions. Early pattern deprivation adversely affects the mechanisms underlying motion detection but, at least under some conditions, not those involved in velocity discrimination. The results suggest that early visual input plays different roles in the development of different aspects of the processing of local motion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".