Is the Cortical Deficit in Amblyopia Due to Reduced Cortical Magnification, Loss of Neural Resolution, or Neural Disorganization?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neural basis of amblyopia is a matter of debate. The following possibilities have been suggested: loss of foveal cells, reduced cortical magnification, loss of spatial resolution of foveal cells, and topographical disarray in the cellular map. To resolve this we undertook a population receptive field (pRF) functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis in the central field in humans with moderate-to-severe amblyopia. We measured the relationship between averaged pRF size and retinal eccentricity in retinotopic visual areas. Results showed that cortical magnification is normal in the foveal field of strabismic amblyopes. However, the pRF sizes are enlarged for the amblyopic eye. We speculate that the pRF enlargement reflects loss of cellular resolution or an increased cellular positional disarray within the representation of the amblyopic eye. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The neural basis of amblyopia, a visual deficit affecting 3% of the human population, remains a matter of debate. We undertook the first population receptive field functional magnetic resonance imaging analysis in participants with amblyopia and compared the projections from the amblyopic and fellow normal eye in the visual cortex. The projection from the amblyopic eye was found to have a normal cortical magnification factor, enlarged population receptive field sizes, and topographic disorganization in all early visual areas. This is consistent with an explanation of amblyopia as an immature system with a normal complement of cells whose spatial resolution is reduced and whose topographical map is disordered. This bears upon a number of competing theories for the psychophysical defect and affects future treatment therapies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".