MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2568261529 · doi:10.1167/16.12.429

Short-term ocular dominance plasticity: no role for color?

2016· article· en· W2568261529 on OpenAlexaff
Kathy T. Mullen, Jiawei Zhou, Yeon Jin Kim, Alexandre Reynaud, Robert F. Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchromatic lensChromatic scaleOcular dominanceContrast (vision)Color visionPsychologyDominance (genetics)OpticsAudiologyOptometryNeuroscienceBiologyPhysicsVisual cortexMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temporarily depriving one eye of its input, in whole or in part, may result in transient changes in ocular dominance and contrast detection thresholds, with the patched eye becoming stronger and more sensitive and the unpatched eye weaker and less sensitive. Here we address two distinct questions about the role of color vision in these plastic changes. First, we ask whether the target effects of eye deprivation are selective or broadband, for example, whether changes in ocular dominance differentially affect stimuli defined by achromatic as opposed to color contrast. Second, we determine the selectivity of the process driving the inter-ocular plastic changes, asking whether chromatic contrast, in comparison to achromatic contrast, is effective in changing ocular dominance. In experiments 1 and 2, we compare the effects of generalized deprivation on chromatic and achromatic test stimuli, using a translucent occluder over one eye for 2.5-hours. This produced changes in ocular dominance, measured using a dichoptic phase combination paradigm (Zhou et al., 2013, J. Vision, 13(12)), and changes in contrast thresholds that are similar in magnitude and time course for chromatic and achromatic test stimuli. In experiments 3 and 4, we use a dichoptic movie-viewing paradigm (Zhou et al., 2014, Proc. Biol. Sci., 281) to investigate the role of color versus achromatic contrast in driving these effects. We show that a color contrast imbalance between the eyes (uni-ocular chromatic deprivation) is not sufficient to produce changes in ocular dominance for chromatic test stimuli. However, an achromatic imbalance with no chromatic imbalance (uni-ocular achromatic deprivation) causes a generalized change in ocular dominance that affects both chromatic and achromatic test stimuli similarly. We conclude that an interocular imbalance in achromatic contrast, and not chromatic contrast, drives plastic changes in ocular dominance, however, these changes apply unselectively to both chromatic and achromatic responses. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2016

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→