Orientation Tuning and Contrast Dependence of Continuous Flash Suppression in Amblyopia and Normal Vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Suppression in amblyopia may be an unequal form of normal interocular suppression or a distinct pathophysiology. To explore this issue, we examined the orientation tuning and contrast dependence of continuous flash suppression (CFS) in adults with amblyopia and visually normal controls. Methods: Nine patients (mean age, 26.9 ± SD 4.7 years) and 11 controls (mean age, 24.8 ± SD 5.3 years) participated. In the CFS paradigm, spatially one-dimensional noise refreshing at 10 Hz was displayed in one eye to induce suppression of the other eye, and suppression strength was measured by using a grating contrast increment detection task. In experiment 1, noise contrast was fixed and the orientation difference between the noise and the grating was varied. In experiment 2, noise and grating orientations were identical and noise contrast was varied. Results: Suppression patterns varied in both groups. In experiment 1, controls showed consistently orientation-tuned CFS (mean half-height bandwidth, 35.8° ± SD 21.5°) with near-equal strength between eyes. Five of nine patients with amblyopia exhibited orientation-independent CFS. Eight patients had markedly unequal suppression between eyes. Experiment 2 found that increasing the noise contrast to the amblyopic eye may produce suppression of the fellow eye, but suppression remained unequal between eyes. Conclusions: Our data revealed that orientation specificity in CFS was very broad or absent in some patients with amblyopia, which could not be predicted by clinical measures. Suppression was unbalanced across the entire contrast range for most patients. This suggests that abnormal early visual experience disrupts the development of interocular suppression mechanisms.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".