MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901371742 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-35084-1

The shift in ocular dominance from short-term monocular deprivation exhibits no dependence on duration of deprivation

2018· article· en· W2901371742 on OpenAlexafffund
Seung Hyun Min, Alex S. Baldwin, Alexandre Reynaud, Robert F. Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada First Research Excellence FundMcGill University
KeywordsOcular dominanceBinocular rivalryMonocular deprivationMonocularBinocular visionSensory deprivationDuration (music)Dominance (genetics)Contrast (vision)PsychologyAudiologyOptometryMedicineBiologyVisual cortexNeuroscienceVisual perceptionComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceSensory systemPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deprivation of visual information from one eye for a 120-minute period in normal adults results in a temporary strengthening of the patched eye's contribution to binocular vision. This plasticity for ocular dominance in adults has been demonstrated by binocular rivalry as well as binocular fusion tasks. Here, we investigate how its dynamics depend on the duration of the monocular deprivation. Using a binocular combination task, we measure the magnitude and recovery of ocular dominance change after durations of monocular deprivation ranging from 15 to 300 minutes. Surprisingly, our results show that the dynamics are of an all-or-none form. There was virtually no significant dependence on the duration of the initial 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations55
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207