Suppression causes a complete breakdown in contrast constancy in amblyopes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amblyopic patients have a deficit in visual acuity and contrast sensitivity in their amblyopic eye as well as suppression of the amblyopic eye input under binocular viewing conditions. In this study we wanted to assess, in normals and amblyopes, the contribution of the two eyes' input under binocular and monocular viewing. For this purpose, using a suprathreshold contrast matching task in which the eyes were stimulated either simultaneously or successively, we measured the binocular balance across spatial frequency and compared it with the contrast threshold sensitivity ratio measured with the same stimuli in both controls and amblyopes. First, we observed that the binocular matching became more imbalanced at high spatial frequency for amblyopes compared with controls. Second, this imbalance did not depend on whether the stimuli were presented simultaneously or successively in the two groups. Finally, for both modes of presentation, the matching balance correlates well with the interocular threshold sensitivity. To conclude, the form of the perceived suprathreshold contrast imbalance as a function of spatial frequency can be solely explained by the interocular threshold sensitivity ratio in amblyopia. This suggests a complete breakdown of contrast constancy previously reported (Hess & Bradley, Nature, 1980) under purely monocular conditions, adding weight to the argument that the reduced sensitivity at and above threshold has a common cause, namely binocular suppression. 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".