MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144910712 · doi:10.1142/s0219635205000951

CROSS-MODAL PLASTICITY IN EARLY BLINDNESS

2005· article· en· W2144910712 on OpenAlexaff
Maurice Ptito, Ron Kupers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrative Neuroscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersSundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie Forskningsråd
KeywordsModalPlasticityBlindnessCognitive scienceNeuroscienceComputer sciencePsychologyCommunicationChemistryPhysicsOptometryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brain shows a remarkable capacity to reorganize itself following early sensory deprivation or neonatal brain damage. Using two models of deprivation, we will show that the brain does indeed adjust to the loss of either the visual cortex (which receives most of the retinal inputs through the lateral geniculate bodies of the thalamus) or the eyes (which provide the major input to the visual cortex) through cross-modal plastic processes. Hamsters, deprived of their visual system at birth, develop novel and permanent retinal projections to the auditory thalamus. These projections form functional synapses and project to the auditory cortex. When trained on a visual discrimination task, the "rewired" hamsters perform as well as normal hamsters. Lesions of the auditory cortex produce cortical blindness. Congenitally blind human subjects, trained to discriminate the orientation of a stimulus applied to the tongue via an electrotactile device, show activation of their visual cortex, whereas trained blindfolded controls show only activation of the somatosensory cortex representing the tongue. We propose that in blind subjects, there is an unmasking of existing cortico-cortical (parieto-occipital) connections, enabling transfer of somatosensory information to visual cortex.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations82
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Integrative NeuroscienceSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207