AB013. The effects of monocular deprivation on the Pulfrich phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Short term monocular deprivation allows for the modulation of ocular dominance, such that the previously deprived eye contribution will increase, while that of non-deprived eye will decrease. This study examines the effects of short monocular occlusion on the Pulfrich phenomenon, an illusory perception of a horizontally moving object moving in an elliptical orbit in depth. In addition, we will explore whether the modulation of the Pulfrich effect is produced in the magnocellular pathway or the parvocellular pathway, by comparing two protocols, each designed to activate one pathway at a time. Methods: The stimulus used throughout the experiment is made up of elements defining a cylinder rotating in depth, allowing to measure interocular delay. The task consists of reporting the direction of rotation of the stimulus presented. There are two different stimuli: the P stimulus is composed of small elements oscillating slowly, which stimulates the parvocellular pathway, and the M stimulus which is composed of large elements oscillating rapidly which stimulates the magnocellular pathway. One experimental session consists of pre-patch testing, one hour of patching, and a post-patch testing. Each participant performs four sessions, both stimuli for each eye. Results: The point of subjective equivalence (PSE) is extracted from psychometric functions obtained during pre-testing and post-testing. Following deprivation of the left eye the PSE shifts negatively, whereas deprivation of the right eye shifts the PSE positively on the psychometric function. This indicated that monocular deprivation slows the perceptual processes of the previously patched eye. The amplitude of this effect is larger for the M protocol than it is for the P protocol. Conclusions: Contrary to expectations, results showed that effects of monocular deprivation are not exclusively mediated by contrast gain mechanisms, as suggested by Zhou and colleagues (2014). The amplitude of the differences observed for the M protocole suggest that the plasticity induced by short term deprivation is equally subjected to dynamic components.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".