Testing the effect of dichoptic surround masking in amblyopic vision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Amblyopia is a neurodevelopmental disorder of spatial vision. Individuals with amblyopia exhibit persistent deficits in their amblyopic eye as a result of strong intraocular suppression from the fellow eye. We previously found that a dichoptic surround mask (mask to one eye, test to the other) improved contrast sensitivity in the eye of two observers exhibiting a deficit in low spatial frequency contrast sensitivity. Our aim was to determine if a similar improvement in contrast sensitivity from dichoptic surround masking might occur in amblyopia. We employed a dichoptic surround masking paradigm. Subjects’ task was to detect the presence of a central target in a two interval-forced-choice procedure. Stimuli were horizontally oriented 0.5 cpd gratings. The central test stimulus was 2 degrees and the surround mask 6.5 degrees in diameter. There were two interleaved test conditions, one to the amblyopic eye the other to the fellow eye, and three surround mask conditions: no mask, same eye mask and test and opposite eye mask and test, giving a total of six conditions. We found that contrast thresholds in the amblyopic eye were elevated in both same eye mask/test and opposite eye mask/test conditions, but to a greater extent in the opposite eye mask/test condition. In summary, dichoptic surround masks failed to improve contrast sensitivity in the amblyopic eye. The amblyopic eye is more susceptible than the fellow eye to the effects of surround masking, irrespective of whether the mask and test are presented to the same or to opposite eyes.
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".