LGN abnormalities in human amblyopes revealed by high-field fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims. To compare the responsiveness of the LGN (lateral geniculate nucleus) when driven by the fixing and fellow amblyopic eye in a group of adult amblyopes. Methods. MR images were acquired on a 4T Bruker MedSpec scanner using a TR of 1.5sec. A binocular localizer was used to establish an ROI for the left and right LGN for each of 5 amblyopic observers. Stimuli were flickering (8Hz) coloured checkerboards that were presented in a block design alternating between the stimulus and a blank of zero luminance. LGN activation driven by fixing and fellow amblyopic eyes was compared. Results. Clear interocular response differences were observed in all five amblyopic subjects with stronger responses (peak and integrated response activity) coming from the fixing eye. Across our sample of amblyopes there was a significantly weaker response from the amblyopic eye for 9 out of the 10 LGNs. Conclusions. There is an amblyopic eye processing deficit at the level of the LGN. A previous VBM study (Barnes et al, HBM 2006 abst.) suggested a significant correlation between the functional deficit in the cortex and LGN structure in human amblyopes. Here we show that LGN function, when driven by the amblyopic eye, is anomalous.
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 | 0.001 | 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".