Modulation of binocular rivalry with rapid monocular visual stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rapid visual stimulation can increase synaptic efficacy by repeated synaptic activation. This long-term potentiation-like (LTP-like) effect can induce increase human visual cortex excitability. To examine the effect of rapid visual stimulation on perception, we tested the hypothesis that rapid monocular visual stimulation would increase the dominance of the stimulated eye in a binocular rivalry task. Participants (n = 25) viewed orthogonal 0.5 cpd gratings presented in a dichoptic anaglyph to induce binocular rivalry. Rivalry dynamics (alternation rate, dominance, and piecemeal durations) were recorded before and after 2 min of rapid monocular stimulation (9Hz flicker of one grating) or a binocular control condition (9Hz alternation of the orthogonal gratings viewed binocularly). Rapid monocular stimulation did not affect alternation rates or piecemeal percept duration. However, unexpectedly, rivalry dominance of the stimulated eye was significantly reduced. A control experiment revealed that this effect could not be explained by monocular adaptation. Together, the results suggest that rapid monocular stimulation boosts dominance in the non-stimulated eye, possibly by activating homeostatic interocular gain control mechanisms.
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) | 0.001 | 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".