Short periods of concordant binocular vision prevent the development of deprivation amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based in part on deprivation studies, it is generally agreed that the development of vision and of the central visual pathways of higher mammals such as cats and primates is experience-dependent. Past deprivation experiments employed periods of exclusively abnormal early visual input. Because of the absence of any normal visual input, such studies indicate only the extremes to which the visual system can change in response to visually driven activity (i.e. its capabilities) rather than provide insight into the role of early visual input in normal development (i.e. what it actually does). We examined the possibility that certain visual input, i.e. normal concordant binocular vision, may be more efficacious than others with respect to its effects on the developing visual system and on vision. On a daily basis, one type of visual input, i.e. normal binocular experience (BE), was pitted against abnormal (monocular exposure, ME) input in order to see if one was more effective. We show that 2 h of daily normal concordant, but not discordant, BE outweighs or protects against as much as 5 h of daily abnormal input to permit the development of normal grating acuity and alignment accuracy in the two eyes. Further, we show that splitting the period of BE into two 1-h periods straddling the period of ME was ineffective, thereby indicating the 2 h of BE each day must be continuous to protect against the development of 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".