Perceptual Grouping During Binocular Rivalry in Mild Glaucoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study tested perceptual grouping during binocular rivalry to probe the strength of neural connectivity of the visual cortex involved in early visual processing in patients with mild glaucoma. Methods: Seventeen patients with mild glaucoma with no significant visual field defects and 14 healthy controls participated. Rivalry stimuli were 1.8°-diameter discs, containing horizontal or vertical sine-wave gratings, viewed dichoptically. To test the grouping, two spatially separated identical stimuli were presented eccentrically to the same or different eyes and to the same or different hemifields. The outcome measures were the time of exclusive dominance of the grouped percept (i.e., percept with synchronized orientations), the rivalry rate, and the epochs of exclusive dominance. Results: For both groups, the grouping occurred primarily for the matching orientations in the same eye/same hemifield (MO SE/SH) and for the matching orientations in the same eye/different hemifield (MO SE/DH) conditions. Time dominance of the grouped percept of the glaucoma group was similar to that of the control group in all conditions. The rivalry rates in the MO SE/SH and MO SE/DH conditions were significantly larger in the control group than in the glaucoma group. The epochs of exclusive dominance of the grouped percept in the MO SE/SH condition were a median of 48-ms longer for the control group, but a median of 116-ms shorter for the glaucoma group when compared to those in the MO SE/DH condition. Conclusion: Patients with mild glaucoma show clear impairments in binocular rivalry while evidence for deficits in perceptual grouping could be inferred only indirectly. If these deficits truly exist, they may have implications for higher levels of visual processing, such as object recognition and scene segmentation, but these predictions remain to be tested in future studies.
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 | 0.001 | 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".