Die Fledermaus: Regarding Optokinetic Contrast Sensitivity and Light-Adaptation, Chicks Are Mice with Wings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Through adaptation, animals can function visually under an extremely broad range of light intensities. Light adaptation starts in the retina, through shifts in photoreceptor sensitivity and kinetics plus modulation of visual processing in retinal circuits. Although considerable research has been conducted on retinal adaptation in nocturnal species with rod-dominated retinas, such as the mouse, little is known about how cone-dominated avian retinas adapt to changes in mean light intensity. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We used the optokinetic response to characterize contrast sensitivity (CS) in the chick retina as a function of spatial frequency and temporal frequency at different mean light intensities. We found that: 1) daytime, cone-driven CS was tuned to spatial frequency; 2) nighttime, presumably rod-driven CS was tuned to temporal frequency and spatial frequency; 3) daytime, presumably cone-driven CS at threshold intensity was invariant with temporal and spatial frequency; and 4) daytime photopic CS was invariant with clock time. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Light- and dark-adaptational changes in CS were investigated comprehensively for the first time in the cone-dominated retina of an avian, diurnal species. The chick retina, like the mouse retina, adapts by using a "day/night" or "cone/rod" switch in tuning preference during changes in lighting conditions. The chick optokinetic response is an attractive model for noninvasive, behavioral studies of adaptation in retinal circuitry in health and disease.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".