The Suppressive Basis of Ocular Dominance Changes Induced by Short-Term Monocular Deprivation in Normal and Amblyopic Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We aimed to study the effect of short-term monocular deprivation on the suppressive interocular interactions in normals and amblyopes by using a dichoptic masking paradigm. Methods: Nine adults with anisometropic or mixed amblyopia and 10 control adults participated in our study. The contrast sensitivity in discriminating a target Gabor dichoptically masked was measured before and after 2 hours of monocular deprivation. The mask consisted of bandpass-filtered noise. Both the target and the mask were horizontally oriented at the spatial frequency of 1.31 cpd. Deprivation was achieved using an opaque patch on the amblyopic eye of amblyopes and the dominant eye of controls. Results: Results were similar in both controls and amblyopes. After 2 hours of monocular deprivation, the previously patched eye showed a significant increase in contrast sensitivity under dichoptic masking, which also suggested reduced suppressive effect from the nonpatched eye. Meanwhile, the contrast sensitivity of the nonpatched eye remained almost unchanged under dichoptic masking. Conclusions: We demonstrate that the ocular dominance changes induced by short-term monocular deprivation-namely, the strengthening of the deprived eye's contribution-are associated with the unilateral and asymmetric changes in suppressive interaction. The suppression from the nondeprived eye is reduced after short-term monocular deprivation. This provides a better understanding of how inverse patching (patching of the amblyopic eye) could, by reducing the suppressive drive from the normally sighted (nondeprived) eye, form the basis of a new treatment for the binocular deficit in amblyopia.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".