The Effect of Early Visual Deprivation on Sensitivity to Orientation in First- and Second-order Patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effect of early visual deprivation on the development of sensitivity to orientation in 11 patients treated for bilateral congenital cataract (mean duration of deprivation = 107 days; range: 11–196) and 11 patients treated for unilateral congenital cataract (mean duration of deprivation = 109 days; range: 7–245). Patients were 6–30 years old at the time of the test. Each subject judged the orientation of supra-threshold first-order (luminance-modulated) and second-order (contrast modulated) 1 c/deg sinusoidal gratings that were matched in space-average luminance and were created using static binary random noise. First-order stripes without noise were included as a control. The task on each trial was to judge whether the stripes were tilted to the left or right of vertical. Over trials, the orientation of the stripes was varied according to a PEST staircase (Harvey, 1997) that terminated after it reached a threshold at 82% correct with 95% confidence. Patients' thresholds were converted to z-scores by comparison to the appropriate age-matched control group. For first-order stripes, both groups of patients performed normally with and without added noise (ps > 0.10). For second-order stripes, all 11 patients treated for bilateral cataract had negative z-scores and the mean was significantly below zero (t(10) = −3.564, p < 0.01), but 3 of the 11 patients had z-scores less than −3. The deficits for second-order stripes were not correlated with acuity nor age at test in either patient group (ps > 0.20). The results suggest that second-order processing is more vulnerable than first-order processing to the effects of early visual deprivation, perhaps because it involves additional processing (Chubb & Sperling, 1988); input through a non-deprived eye may decrease the vulnerability.
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) | 0.001 | 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".