MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139927483 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhh214

Loss of Neurofilament Labeling in the Primary Visual Cortex of Monocularly Deprived Monkeys

2004· article· en· W2139927483 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin R. Duffy, Margaret S. Livingstone

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsMonocular deprivationVisual cortexNeurofilamentNeuroscienceOcular dominanceMacaqueVisual systemBiologySensory deprivationMonocularPsychologySensory systemOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual experience during early life is important for the development of neural organizations that support visual function. Closing one eye (monocular deprivation) during this sensitive period can cause a reorganization of neural connections within the visual system that leaves the deprived eye functionally disconnected. We have assessed the pattern of neurofilament labeling in monocularly deprived macaque monkeys to examine the possibility that a cytoskeleton change contributes to deprivation-induced reorganization of neural connections within the primary visual cortex (V-1). Monocular deprivation for three months starting around the time of birth caused a significant loss of neurofilament labeling within deprived-eye ocular dominance columns. Three months of monocular deprivation initiated in adulthood did not produce a loss of neurofilament labeling. The evidence that neurofilament loss was found only when deprivation occurred during the sensitive period supports the notion that the loss permits restructuring of deprived-eye neural connections within the visual system. These results provide evidence that, in addition to reorganization of LGN inputs, the intrinsic circuitry of V-1 neurons is altered when monocular deprivation occurs early in 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207