Double dissociation in monocular blindness: Enhanced contrast but impaired motion perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has shown that early monocular blindness from unilateral enucleation (surgical removal of one eye) results in equivalent or enhanced form perception but impairments in aspects of motion processing (see Steeves et al., 2008). To further investigate the effects of early monocular blindness on form and motion processing, we compared binocularly and monocularly viewing controls to individuals who were unilaterally enucleated within the first few years of life. Thresholds were measured on three tasks that had not before been tested in this population; 1) contrast discrimination, 2) horizontal speed discrimination, and 3) horizontal coherent motion discrimination. Preliminary data are consistent with previous research showing early monocular blindness results in equivalent or enhanced sensitivity compared to binocularly and monocularly viewing controls at some contrasts. It also results in higher motion discrimination thresholds for lower speeds and a nasalward bias in the perception of coherent motion. These results add to the literature showing that the loss of one eye early in life can enhance low contrast form processing, presumably through a lack of binocular interactions. In contrast, this same lack of binocularity can impede the normal maturation of motion processing suggesting that binocularity is required for normal maturation of this system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".