MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2586310414 · doi:10.1002/dev.21502

Electrophysiological evidence of altered visual processing in adults who experienced visual deprivation during infancy

2017· article· en· W2586310414 on OpenAlexafffund
Sidney J. Segalowitz, Avital Sternin, Terri L. Lewis, Jane Dywan, Daphne Maurer

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopmental Psychobiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenBrock University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBrock University
KeywordsVisual processingPsychologyVisual cortexNeuroscienceElectrophysiologyExtrastriate cortexVisual perceptionAudiologyPerceptionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the role of early visual input in visual system development by testing adults who had been born with dense bilateral cataracts that blocked all patterned visual input during infancy until the cataractous lenses were removed surgically and the eyes fitted with compensatory contact lenses. Patients viewed checkerboards and textures to explore early processing regions (V1, V2), Glass patterns to examine global form processing (V4), and moving stimuli to explore global motion processing (V5). Patients' ERPs differed from those of controls in that (1) the V1 component was much smaller for all but the simplest stimuli and (2) extrastriate components did not differentiate amongst texture stimuli, Glass patterns, or motion stimuli. The results indicate that early visual deprivation contributes to permanent abnormalities at early and mid levels of visual processing, consistent with enduring behavioral deficits in the ability to process complex textures, global form, and global motion.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmental PsychobiologySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207