The critical period for darkness-induced recovery of the vision of the amblyopic eye following early monocular deprivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure of kittens to complete darkness for 10 days has been shown (Duffy & Mitchell, 2013) to reverse the loss of visual acuity that follows a prior period of monocular deprivation (MD). In that study, recovery of acuity in the previously deprived eye was fast despite the fact that darkness was imposed 2 months after the period of MD when kittens were 3 months old. In a later study (Holman, Duffy, & Mitchell, 2018), it was demonstrated that the same period of darkness was ineffective when it was imposed on cats about 1 year old, suggesting that dark exposure may only promote recovery when applied within an early critical period. To determine the profile of this critical period, the identical period of darkness (10 days) was imposed on kittens at various ages that had all received the same 7-day period of MD from postnatal day 30 (P30). Recovery of the acuity of the deprived eye as measured by use of a jumping stand was complete when darkness was imposed prior to P186 days, but thereafter, darkness induced progressively smaller acuity improvements and was ineffective in kittens when it began at or beyond P191 days of age. These data indicate a critical period for darkness-induced recovery with an abrupt end over a 5-day period.
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".