Interocular suppression in amblyopia for global orientation processing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We developed a dichoptic global orientation coherence paradigm to quantify interocular suppression in amblyopia. This task is biased towards ventral processing and allows comparison with two other techniques-global motion processing, which is more dorsally biased, and binocular phase combination, which most likely reflects striate function. We found a similar pattern for the relationship between coherence threshold and interocular contrast curves (thresholds vs. interocular contrast ratios or TvRs) in our new paradigm compared with those of the previous dichoptic global motion coherence paradigm. The effective contrast ratios at balance point (where the signals from the two eyes have equal weighting) in our new paradigm were larger than those of the dichoptic global motion coherence paradigm but less than those of the binocular phase combination paradigm. The measured effective contrast ratios in the three paradigms were also positively correlated with each other, with the two global coherence paradigms having the highest correlation. We concluded that: (a) The dichoptic global orientation coherence paradigm is effective in quantifying interocular suppression in amblyopia; and (b) Interocular suppression, while sharing a common suppression mechanism at the early stage in the pathway (e.g., striate cortex), may have additional extra-striate contributions that affect both dorsal and ventral streams differentially.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it