BINOCULAR FUSION DURING RIVALRY INCREASES AFTER SHORT TERM MONOCULAR DEPRIVATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporarily (120 mins) patching one eye subsequently increases the amount of time spent consciously perceiving the deprived eye's image during binocular rivalry. A recent MRS investigation [Lunghi et. al, 2015] suggests that a reduction in cortical inhibition of the deprived eye may be responsible for the patching-induced shift in ocular dominance. In the present study we investigated whether the occurrence of mixed percepts in binocular rivalry (percepts that require integrated information from both eyes) changes as a result of monocular deprivation. Participants viewed orthogonal ( +/- 45° ) sinusoidal gratings presented individually to each eye and completed a 5AFC task over the course of a 3-minute block where they indicated whether they were seeing one of the following: (1) an exclusively left-tilted grating, (2) a mostly left-tilted-grating (mixed, left-dominant), (3) a balanced fusion of the two gratings, (4) a mostly right-tilted-grating (mixed, right-dominant), or (5) an exclusively right-tilted grating. Total durations and mean durations were obtained for each percept from a 9-minute baseline session and a 6-minute session after 2 hours of deprivation. Post/baseline ratios (log2) were calculated and used for analysis in a 2-way (time x percept) repeated measures ANOVA. Preliminary data indicate significant time x percept interactions for both total durations and mean durations (Fs = 41, 7; ps < 0.05). Pairwise comparisons show significant patching–induced increases in the proportion and mean duration of mixed percepts dominated by the patched eye (t= -2.8, - 2.6; ps < 0.05) and significant decreases in the proportion of exclusive percepts from the unpatched eye (t = 3.5; p < 0.05). These findings suggest that the ocular dominance shift produced by short-term monocular deprivation is driven by an increase in mixed (binocular) percepts favoring the patched eye, and by a decrease in exclusive (monocular) percepts from the unpatched eye. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2018
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".