Ontogenetic changes in the visual acuity of<i>Sepia officinalis</i>measured using the optomotor response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many organisms vision is of fundamental importance to many aspects of their lives. Here we present the first study to examine the effects of ontogeny and light intensity on the vision of a cephalopod. We measured the visual acuity of four size classes of Sepia officinalis L., 1758 (common cuttlefish) under four light intensities. We used an optomotor testing system in which we recorded the unconditioned whole-body movements exhibited by individuals when placed inside a rotating cylinder lined with vertical black and white stripes. By varying the width of these stripes to determine the minimum width associated with a positive response, we were able to estimate the visual acuity angle or minimum separable angle (MSA). We found a significant effect of both body size and light intensity; larger animals had greater visual acuity, while individuals of all size classes discriminated more detail at higher light intensities. The minimum recorded MSA for S. officinalis was 34' of arc (0.57°) for the largest animals (80 mm) at the highest light intensity used (15 µW·cm –2 ). Decreasing light intensity from 15 to 4.5 µW·cm –2 affected animals of all sizes to approximately the same degree, reducing their visual acuity by approximately 55%.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".