Reduced Monocular Luminance Increases Monocular Temporal Synchrony Threshold in Human Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to present our investigation of the influence of reduced monocular luminance on monocular and dichoptic temporal synchrony processing in healthy adults. Methods: Ten adults with normal or corrected to normal visual acuity participated in our psychophysical study. The temporal synchrony threshold in dichoptic (experiment 1), monocular (experiment 2), and binocular (experiment 3) viewing configurations was obtained from each observer. Four flickering Gaussian dots (one synchronous and one asynchronous pair of two dots) were displayed, from which the observers were asked to identify the asynchronous pair. The temporal phase lag in the signal pair (asynchronous) but not in the reference pair (synchronous) was varied. In addition, a neutral density (ND) filter of various intensities (1.3 and 2.0 log units) was placed before the dominant eye throughout the behavioral measurement. In the end, dichoptic, monocular, and binocular thresholds were measured for each observer. Results: With decreasing monocular luminance, the dichoptic threshold (2 ND vs. 0 ND, P < 0.001; 2 ND vs. 1.3 ND P = 0.001) and monocular threshold (2 ND vs. 0 ND, P < 0.001; 2 ND vs. 1.3 ND, P = 0.003) increased; however, the bincoular threshold remained unaffected (P = 0.576). Conclusions: Reduced luminance induces delay and disturbs the discrimination of temporal synchrony. Our findings have clinical implications in visual disorders.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".