Deficient Binocular Combination of Second-Order Stimuli in Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sensory imbalances in humans with amblyopia have been well documented using luminance-modulated (first-order) stimuli. However, little is known regarding whether there is a deficient binocular combination in amblyopes for stimuli defined by modulations in contrast (second-order stimuli). To address this, we asked two questions: Does a sensory imbalance also exist in the binocular combination of second-order stimuli, and if so, is it more severe than that expected on the basis of the imbalance for first-order stimuli? METHODS: The sensory imbalances of 14 adult amblyopes (mean age: 30.5 ± 11.5 years; 5 with strabismus and 9 without) were measured using a dichoptic phase combination task. Three types of second-order dichoptic stimulus pairs were used in the study, where the carriers in the two eyes were either correlated, anticorrelated, or uncorrelated. Results were compared with those obtained using first-order stimuli in all observers. RESULTS: We found that second-order binocular combination in amblyopes was not affected by the interocular carrier correlations. The amblyopic eye's contribution to the binocularly fused percept was much less than that of the nonamblyopic eye. The resulting sensory imbalance in binocular combination for second-order images was comparable to that for first-order images in 8 of the observers but was more severe in the other 6 amblyopes. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that amblyopia does not disrupt the normal architecture of binocular combination for second-order signals; however, there is an additional deficit in binocular combination of second-order image in some amblyopes that cannot be fully accounted for by the known first-order sensory imbalance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".