MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115945237 · doi:10.1002/dev.20055

Multiple sensitive periods in human visual development: Evidence from visually deprived children

2005· review· en· W2115945237 on OpenAlexaff
Terri L. Lewis, Daphne Maurer

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptokinetic reflexPeriod (music)PsychologyAudiologyVisual acuityDevelopmental psychologyOptometryEye movementNeuroscienceOphthalmologyMedicinePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychophysical studies of children deprived of early visual experience by dense cataracts indicate that there are multiple sensitive periods during which experience can influence visual development. We note three sensitive periods within acuity, each with different developmental time courses: the period of visually-driven normal development, the sensitive period for damage, and the sensitive period for recovery. Moreover, there are different sensitive periods for different aspects of vision. Relative to the period of visually driven normal development, the sensitive period for damage is surprisingly long for acuity, peripheral vision, and asymmetry of optokinetic nystagmus, but surprisingly short for global motion. A comparison of results from unilaterally versus bilaterally deprived children provides insights into the complex nature of interactions between the eyes during normal visual development.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.141
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations427
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207