AB066. Duration dependent visual plasticity via monocular deprivation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Short-term monocular deprivation has been recently shown to temporarily increase the sensitivity of the patched eye. Many studies have patched subjects for an arbitrary period of 2.5 hours, but for no principled reason. Our goal is to show a relationship, if any, between the length of patching duration and the strength of its effect. Methods: We tested nine subjects with three different patching durations: 1-, 2-, 3-hour. Four of the nine subjects were patched for 5-hour. Monocular deprivation was achieved by the use of a translucent eyepatch. A session included two rounds of baseline testing of interocular eye balance, patching, and post-patching tests. Each post-patching test occurred at 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 60 and 96 minutes after patching to track the patching effect over time. Every subject performed two sessions per condition. Results: One-hour patching produced a small shift in ocular dominance. A larger shift occurred from 2-hour patching, but 3-hour patching produced a comparable effect to the one measured after 2-hour patching. Conclusions: These results show a saturation of the patching effect beyond 2-hour patching. Hence, we believe that 2-hour patching duration is the optimal duration for eye dominance changes induced by monocular deprivation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it