MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3011658816 · doi:10.1101/2020.03.17.987362

Monocular vision is intrinsically unstable: a side-effect of binocular homeostasis

2020· preprint· en· W3011658816 on OpenAlexaff
Alexandre Reynaud, Kévin Blaize, Frédéric Chavane, R. F. Hess

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonocular deprivationMonocularOcular dominanceContrast (vision)Monocular visionBinocular visionPsychologyNeuroscienceVisual cortexOptometryArtificial intelligenceMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract It is now accepted that short-term deprivation of one eye in adults results in not only a post-deprivation strengthening of the vision in the previously deprived eye but also a deterioration in the vision of the previously non-patched eye. Such monocular deprivation of 1-2 hours induces changes that last approximately 30-90 minutes. There is some support for this neuroplastic effect being the consequence of a change in the contrast gain within the binocular circuity. What is not known is when these changes in gain are initiated. One possibility is that they are initiated only once the patch is removed. The other possibility is that they are the result of a slow build up from the moment the patch is first applied. In this study, we measure monocular contrast detection thresholds of the non-deprived eye over time during the deprivation of the other eye. We show that contrast threshold increases over time during the deprivation of the other eye. This observation suggest that the patching effect is mediated by a slow build up over the deprivation period: reducing the vision of the non-deprived eye and enhancing the vision of the deprived eye reflecting reciprocal changes in sensitivity. These results highlight a hitherto unknown feature of human vision, namely that monocular vision per se is intrinsically unstable which is a consequence of the reciprocal inhibitory circuits that homeostatically regulate binocular vision. This questions a whole corpus of studies of visual function that rely on the assumption that monocular vision is intrinsically stable.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207