Transcranial random noise stimulation and exercise do not modulate ocular dominance plasticity in adults with normal vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Short-term deprivation of one eye by monocular patching causes a temporary increase in the contribution of that eye to binocular vision when the eye patch is removed. This effect, known as ocular dominance plasticity, provides a model of neuroplasticity within the human binocular visual system. We investigated whether physical exercise and the non-invasive brain stimulation technique transcranial random noise stimulation (tRNS), two interventions that may increase visual cortex neuroplasticity, enhance ocular dominance plasticity when delivered individually or in combination. Ocular dominance was measured using a grating rivalry test and a dichoptic letter contrast polarity judgment test. We observed robust ocular dominance changes for both outcome measures following 2-hour monocular deprivation; however, the magnitude of the effect was not influenced by exercise or tRNS. Ocular dominance plasticity may already be maximal after 2 hours of monocular deprivation in those with normal vision and therefore cannot be augmented by interventions designed to enhance neuroplasticity.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".