BOLD fMRI Response of Early Visual Areas to Perceived Contrast in Human Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we used a temporal two-alternative forced choice psychophysical procedure to measure the observer's perception of a 22% physical contrast grating for each eye as a function of spatial frequency in four subjects with unilateral amblyopia and in six subjects with normal vision. Contrast thresholds were also measured using a standard staircase method. Additionally, blood-oxygenation-level-dependent (BOLD) functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used to measure the neuronal response within early visual cortical areas to monocular presentations of the same 22% physical contrast gratings as a function of spatial frequency. For all six subjects with normal vision and for three subjects with amblyopia, the psychophysically measured perception of 22% contrast as a function of spatial frequency was the same for both eyes. Threshold contrast, however, was elevated for the amblyopic eye for all subjects, as expected. The magnitude of the fMRI response to 22% physical contrast within "activated" voxels was the same for each eye as a function of spatial frequency, regardless of the presence of amblyopia. However, there were always fewer "activated" fMRI voxels during amblyopic stimulation than during normal eye stimulation. These results are consistent with the hypotheses that contrast thresholds are elevated in amblyopia because fewer neurons are responsive during amblyopic stimulation, and that the average firing rate of the responsive neurons, which reflects the perception of contrast, is unaffected in amblyopia.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".