Chromatic and achromatic monocular deprivation produce separable changes of eye dominance in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporarily depriving one eye of its input, in whole or in part, results in a transient shift in eye dominance in human adults, with the patched eye becoming stronger and the unpatched eye weaker. However, little is known about the role of colour contrast in these behavioural changes. Here, we first show that the changes in eye dominance and contrast sensitivity induced by monocular eye patching affect colour and achromatic contrast sensitivity equally. We next use dichoptic movies, customized and filtered to stimulate the two eyes differentially. We show that a strong imbalance in achromatic contrast between the eyes, with no colour content, also produces similar, unselective shifts in eye dominance for both colour and achromatic contrast sensitivity. Interestingly, if this achromatic imbalance is paired with similar colour contrast in both eyes, the shift in eye dominance is selective, affecting achromatic but not chromatic contrast sensitivity and revealing a dissociation in eye dominance for colour and achromatic image content. On the other hand, a strong imbalance in chromatic contrast between the eyes, with no achromatic content, produces small, unselective changes in eye dominance, but if paired with similar achromatic contrast in both eyes, no changes occur. We conclude that perceptual changes in eye dominance are strongly driven by interocular imbalances in achromatic contrast, with colour contrast having a significant counter balancing effect. In the short term, eyes can have different dominances for achromatic and chromatic contrast, suggesting separate pathways at the site of these neuroplastic changes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".