Visual plasticity induced by short-term monocular deprivation recovers without visual input
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-term monocular deprivation in adults has been shown to temporarily strengthen the contribution of the patched eye to a fused percept. In adults, the effect of monocular deprivation disappears within 30 minutes after the patch has been taken off (Zhou et al., doi: 10.1155/2017/4780876). Here we investigate whether visual deprivation (sitting in the dark) after patching would preserve the effect of monocular deprivation. We patched six adults with normal vision for two hours with a translucent eyepatch. We used a binocular phase combination task to measure each eye's contribution to a fused percept. For the control condition, subjects performed two rounds of baseline tests, were patched for two hours, then performed post-patching measurements at 0, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 60 and 96 minutes after patch removal. For the visual deprivation condition, the subjects sat in darkness after patching with both eyes covered for one hour. Subjects then performed the post-patching tests. Each subject completed two sessions for every condition. There was a significant difference (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank, P< 0.05, Cohen's d = 1.5) in the effect of monocular deprivation between the darkness and control conditions. Subjects recovered from monocular deprivation even when sitting in the dark. This result suggests that recovery from the patching effect does not require visual input. 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".