Action Video Gaming Does Not Influence Short-Term Ocular Dominance Plasticity in Visually Normal Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Action video gaming can promote neural plasticity. Short-term monocular patching drives neural plasticity in the visual system of human adults. For instance, short-term monocular patching of 0.5-5 h briefly enhances the patched eye's contribution in binocular vision (i.e., short-term ocular dominance plasticity). In this study, we investigate whether action video gaming can influence this plasticity in adults with normal vision. We measured participants' eye dominance using a binocular phase combination task before and after 2.5 h of monocular patching. Participants were asked to play action video games, watch action video game movies, or play non-action video games during the period of monocular patching. We found that participants' change of ocular dominance after monocular patching was not significantly different either for playing action video games versus watching action video game movies (Comparison 1) or for playing action video games versus playing non-action video games (Comparison 2). These results suggest that action video gaming does not either boost or eliminate short-term ocular dominance plasticity, and that the neural site for this type of plasticity might be in the early visual pathway.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".