Issues Revisited: Shifts in Binocular Balance Depend on the Deprivation Duration in Normal and Amblyopic Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recent studies indicate that short-term monocular deprivation increases the deprived eye's contribution to binocular fusion in both adults with normal vision and amblyopia. In this study, we investigated whether the changes in visual plasticity depended on the duration of deprivation in normal and amblyopic adults. METHODS: Twelve anisometropia amblyopic observers (aged 24.8 ± 2.3 years) and 12 age-matched normal observers (aged 23.9 ± 1.2 years) participated in the study. The non-dominant eye of normal observers or amblyopic eye of amblyopic observers was deprived for 30, 120, and 300 min in a randomized order. Their eye balance was measured with a phase combination task, which is a psychophysical test, before and after the deprivation. This design enabled us to measure changes induced in binocular balance as an index visual plasticity due to monocular deprivations. RESULTS: By comparing the ocular dominance changes as a result of monocular deprivation with different deprivation durations, we found evidence that the ocular dominance changes are slightly larger after longer deprivations in both normal and amblyopic observers, albeit with a statistical significance. The changes from 120-min were significantly greater than those from 30-min deprivation in both groups. The magnitude of changes in sensory eye balance was significantly larger in normal observers than that in the amblyopic observers; however, the longevity of changes in visual plasticity was found to be more long-lasting in amblyopic observers than the normal counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of deprivation matters in both normal and amblyopic observers. Ocular dominance imbalance that is typically observed in amblyopia can be more ameliorated with a longer duration of 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".