Vision with one eye: a review of visual function following unilateral enucleation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What happens to vision in the remaining eye following the loss of vision in the fellow eye? Does the one-eyed individual have supernormal visual ability with the remaining eye in order to adapt and compensate for the loss of binocularity and the binocular depth cue, stereopsis? There are subtle changes in visual function following the complete loss of one eye from unilateral enucleation. Losing binocularity early in life results in a dissociation in form perception and motion processing: some aspects of visual spatial ability are enhanced, whereas motion processing and oculomotor behaviour appear to be adversely affected suggesting they are intrinsically linked to the presence of binocularity in early life. These differential effects may be due to a number of factors, including plasticity through recruitment of resources to the remaining eye; the absence of binocular inhibitory interactions; and/or years of monocular practice after enucleation. Finally, despite this dissociation of spatial vision and motion processing, research that has examined visual direction and performance on monocular tasks shows adaptive effects as a result of the loss of one eye. Practically speaking, one-eyed individuals maintain perfectly normal lives and are not limited by their lack of binocularity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".