Short-term monocular deprivation delays the processing of the previously-patched eye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short term monocular deprivation modulates ocular dominance, such that the previously deprived eye’s contribution to the binocular percept increases, supposedly as a result of changes in contrast-gain. Therefore, as a result of an increase in contrast-gain, the processing time of the previously patched eye would be expected to speed up. The aim of this study is to test this hypothesis by examining the effects of short-term monocular deprivation on interocular synchronicity. In order to measure the interocular delay, we used a paradigm based on the Pulfrich phenomenon where a cylinder rotating in depth, defined by moving Gabor patches, is presented at different interocular phases generating strong to ambiguous depth percepts. Hence, the point of subjective equality at which the cylinder is seen rotating ambiguously (i.e. is appearing flat) characterizes the interocular delay. The interocular delay was measured at baseline before patching and at outcome, after one hour of monocular deprivation. Eight conditions were tested, defined by the patched eye (left or right), the spatio-temporal properties of the stimulus (small and slow or large and fast) and the type of patch worn during the patching period (translucent or opaque). Contrary to expectations, short-term monocular deprivation induces an interocular delay in the previously patched eye. The amplitude of this effect is larger following opaque patching compared to translucent patching. Our results demonstrate a negative effect – i.e. a slowing down in the processing time of the previously patched-eye – induced by short term monocular deprivation. This suggests that the plasticity effects of monocular deprivation are not exclusively mediated by contrast-gain mechanisms and that light adaptation mechanisms might also be involved in the plasticity resulting in processing delays as a result of short-term monocular deprivation.
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) | 0.002 | 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".