Plasticity in Sensory Systems, Jennifer K. E.Steeves, Laurence R.Harris, eds. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2013. $96.00
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FIGURE: Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2013. $96.00Although the title might suggest a broader mandate, this timely edited book reviews primarily the capacity for change (plasticity) in the visual system. All 12 contributing authors were participants at a conference on Plastic Vision in 2011 in Toronto that was organized by the editors. The book is divided into three sections, each with four chapters: Visual and Visuomotor Plasticity, Plasticity in Children and Plasticity in Adulthood, and Vision Rehabilitation. Optometrists are very familiar with the traditional notion of neural plasticity in the visual system as an early period, often referred to as critical, during which unbalanced visual input to the two eyes can lead to reduced vision in one eye (amblyopia) and/or severe impairment of stereoscopic vision. It has long been asserted that correction of these deficits could only occur if interventions were initiated before a certain age. A chapter by Hess and Thompson opens with the anecdotal account of how the late Fergus Campbell would relate to new members of his laboratory his belief that in authoritative texts such as Duke-Elder’s System of Ophthalmology, the more dogmatic a statement was phrased, the more likely it was wrong. So confident was he of this assertion that he would use it to find possible research topics for new graduate students; he would open any volume of the set at random and locate a strongly asserted position to test. I might add that from my experience of Fergus, this scenario would probably be accompanied by a twinkle in Fergus’s eye, as he passed a beverage accompanied by one of own printed coasters on which was a phrase such as “publish or perish” to unsettle the student’s nerve and, as a consequence, the drink. Many of the chapters in this fine book provide data to challenge the assertion that recovery from amblyopia occurs only in childhood. Chapters by Maurer and Lewis, Hess and Thompson, and by Barry all provide strong evidence of significant neural plasticity in adulthood that can be tapped by various innovative procedures. Optometrists will also find the other chapters very instructive as they address topics such as the wider shortcomings in amblyopia including visuomotor deficits, cross-modal plasticity as a consequence of enucleation of an eye or early blindness, as well as visual rehabilitative strategies. Donald E. Mitchell Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.050 | 0.034 |
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".