MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079510040 · doi:10.1167/5.8.292

Low-level and high-level maximum motion displacement deficits in amblyopic children

2010· article· en· W2079510040 on OpenAlexaff
CM Ho, Deborah Giaschi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMathematicsOpticsAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direction discrimination thresholds for maximum motion displacement (Dmax) are not fixed values but are highly dependent on stimulus parameters. Dmax increases with reduced dot probability (Boulton & Baker, 1993; Ramachandran & Anstis, 1983) or increased dot size (Cavanagh et al., 1985; Morgan, 1992). It has been theorized that the increase in Dmax under these conditions might reflect a switch in processing from low-level to high-level motion mechanisms in normal observers (Nishida & Sato, 1995; Sato, 1998). The proposed low-level process is reliant on spatial-frequency-tuned motion detectors and the high-level process is mediated by feature matching mechanisms. To determine whether this “switch” in motion mechanisms is observed in amblyopic individuals, thresholds were obtained in both eyes of 9 children with unilateral amblyopia and 9 controls. Each subject performed the task under three random dot display parameters: 20 min size at 5% density (baseline condition), 20 min size at 0.5% density (reduced probability condition), and 1 deg size at 5% density (increased dot size condition). A significant increase in Dmax was observed for displays with reduced dot probability and increased dot size relative to baseline in both groups. However, on the baseline and reduced dot probability conditions, Dmax was significantly lower in both eyes of the amblyopic group compared to the control group. For the increased dot size condition, Dmax was significantly lower in the amblyopic eye but significantly higher in the fellow eye compared to the control group. Extent of binocularity and subtype of amblyopia were not predictive of abnormal performance in this small sample. The results suggest that amblyopic children show the expected shift from low- to high-level motion mechanisms, but both mechanisms appear to be deficient. Our findings implicate abnormal binocular motion processing mechanisms in the neural deficit underlying amblyopia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.280 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207