Suprathreshold Motion Perception in Anisometropic Amblyopia: Interocular Speed Matching and the Pulfrich Effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SIGNIFICANCE: Our results indicate that the difference in perceived luminance between the amblyopic and fellow eyes that is present under dichoptic viewing conditions does not affect the perceived speed of suprathreshold motion stimuli. This finding provides a new insight into suprathreshold perception in amblyopia. PURPOSE: Interocular matching experiments indicate that dichoptically presented stimuli have a lower perceived luminance in amblyopic eyes relative to fellow eyes. This may be a consequence of interocular suppression. We investigated whether this effect extends to suprathreshold motion perception. METHODS: Participants with amblyopia and control observers matched the perceived speed of dichoptically presented random-dot kinematograms and the perceived luminance of gray patches. Control participants also performed the speed matching task with a neutral density filter over one eye to simulate a perceived luminance reduction. RESULTS: The amblyopia group exhibited lower perceived luminance in the amblyopic than in the fellow eye, as has previously been reported. However, interocular speed matching was veridical. For control observers, perceived speed was reduced in the eye with a neutral density filter relative to the nonfiltered eye. To assess whether the perceived luminance reduction in the amblyopic eye affected binocular function, we also measured the Pulfrich effect in the amblyopia group with equal luminance presented to each eye. No patients reported a spontaneous Pulfrich effect. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that suprathreshold speed perception is intact in the amblyopic eye when both eyes are open.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".