Monocular deprivation reduces reliability of visual cortical responses to binocular disparity stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While continuous monocular deprivation (MD) of patterned vision causes severe loss of visual cortical responses and visual acuity in the affected eye, these effects can be avoided by providing brief daily periods of binocular exposure [BE; D.E. Mitchell et al. (2003) Curr. Biol., 8, 1179-1182; D.E. Mitchell et al. (2006) Eur. J. Neurosci., 23, 2458-2466; D.S. Schwarzkopf et al. (2007) Eur. J. Neurosci., 25, 270-280]. In order to analyse binocular mechanisms involved in this phenomenon, we studied neuronal responses in primary visual cortex to binocular disparity stimuli in cats that had experienced mixed daily visual exposure (i.e. different amounts of daily binocular and monocular exposure). To examine whether binocular responses are as reliable in MD as in normal animals, we analysed single-trial responses to spatial phase disparity stimuli. In cats with various amounts of daily binocular experience (3.5 h, 7 h or 12 h) alone, about half of neurons (47.9%) showed reliable phase-specific binocular responses in two consecutive trials. The percentage of phase-selective cells was reduced in cats with mixed visual exposure with a decrease in the duration of daily BE. Within these neurons, a 'stable' cell population, i.e. with identical relative phases eliciting the strongest and weakest responses in two trials, was also reduced. In other words, the responses of neurons recorded from deprived animals were more likely to show different preferred phases on successive trials, although their amplitude ratios in both trials were about equal. We suggest that the detrimental effect of MD on binocular vision may begin, at least in part, with a subtle disruption of the mechanism involved in discrimination of binocular disparity signals.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".