Evidences of bidirectional eye suppression in amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of evidence suggests that binocular interactions are still present in amblyopes under certain viewing conditions, even in adults. Here we determined whether suppression was bidirectional (from dominant eye to the amblyopic eye but also from the amblyopic to the dominant eye) and explored the neural correlates. We tested the degree of suppression in 8 strabismic adults and 8 controls by using a flash suppression paradigm: a 30%-contrast grating was presented to one eye (S1) followed by a flash of another grating presented to the other eye (S2). The magnitude of suppression was manipulated by changing the contrast of S2 (10, 30, 100%). For each trial, S1 was presented either at 85 or 95° and S2 at the other orientation while the observers indicated the perceived stimulus throughout the trial. High-density electrical mapping was simultaneously recorded. To specifically measure the cortical response of the suppressed stimulus under dichoptic viewing, S1 flickered at 7.5 Hz to evoke steady-state activity. As expected, the flash suppression effect was found in both groups when S1 was applied to amblyopic (or non-dominant in controls) and S2 to the dominant eye. Suppression was increased with S2 at 100% of contrast and negligible at 10%. The magnitude of the flash suppression at 30% of contrast was about 60% stronger in amblyopes, suggested a facilitatory effect of chronic suppression. The reverse suppression effect was observed such that the amblyopic eye suppressed the response of the dominant eye. EEG topographies revealed maximal suppressive response over the occipital cortex in both groups with a more occipito-parietal distribution in amblyopes. Source localisation modeling is ongoing to better characterise the underlying generators. Thus there is evidence for a bidirectional interaction between the eyes of amblyopes although the inhibition from the dominant eye is stronger. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".