Short-Term Deprivation Does Not Influence Monocular or Dichoptic Temporal Synchrony at Low Temporal Frequency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on binocular combination and rivalry show that short-term deprivation strengthens the contribution of the deprived eye in binocular vision. However, whether short-term monocular deprivation affects temporal processing per se is not clear. To address this issue, we conducted a study to investigate the effect of monocular deprivation on dichoptic temporal synchrony. We tested ten adults with normal vision and patched their dominant eye with an opaque patch for 2.5 hours. A temporal synchrony paradigm was used to measure if temporal synchrony thresholds change as a result of monocular pattern deprivation. In this paradigm, we displayed two pairs of Gaussian blobs flickering at 1 Hz with either the same or different phased- temporal modulation. In Experiment 1, we obtained the thresholds for detecting temporal asynchrony under dichoptic viewing configurations. We compared the thresholds for temporal synchrony between before and after monocular deprivation and found no significant changes of the interocular synchrony. In Experiment 2, we measured the monocular thresholds for detecting temporal asynchrony. We also found no significant changes of the monocular synchrony of either the patched eye or the unpatched eye. Our findings suggest that short-term monocular deprivation induced-plasticity does not influence monocular or dichoptic temporal synchrony at low temporal frequency.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".