Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of visual function takes place over many months or years in primate infants. Visual sensitivity is very poor near birth and improves over different times courses for different visual functions. The neural mechanisms that underlie these processes are not well understood despite many decades of research. The puzzle arises because research into the factors that limit visual function in infants has found surprisingly mature neural organization and adult-like receptive field properties in very young infants. The high degree of visual plasticity that has been documented during the sensitive period in young children and animals leaves the brain vulnerable to abnormal visual experience. Abnormal visual experience during the sensitive period can lead to amblyopia, a developmental disorder of vision affecting ∼3% of children. This review provides a historical perspective on research into visual development and the disorder amblyopia. The mismatch between the status of the primary visual cortex and visual behavior, both during visual development and in amblyopia, is discussed, and several potential resolutions are considered. It seems likely that extrastriate visual areas further along the visual pathways may set important limits on visual function and show greater vulnerability to abnormal visual experience. Analyses based on multiunit, population activity may provide useful representations of the information being fed forward from primary visual cortex to extrastriate processing areas and to the motor output.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".