Binocular function in the aging visual system: fusion, suppression, and stereoacuity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Changes in vision that occur in normal healthy aging can be seen in fundamental measures of monocular vision. However, the nature of the changes in binocular vision with age remain unclear. Methods A total of 28 older (53–66 years) and 28 younger adults (20–31 years) were enrolled in this study. We performed a battery of tests to assess differences in monocular contrast thresholds and various binocular visual functions including dichoptic masking weight and strength, the binocular balance point for fused stimuli, and stereoacuity in the aging and control groups. Results Aging significantly increased monocular contrast thresholds (p < 0.001). Although this suggests that aging reduces the effective “input gain” to vision, we also found a significantly elevated contribution of those weaker signals to interocular suppression (p < 0.001). Consequently, there was no significant net difference in the strength of interocular suppression (p = 0.065). We did not find a significant difference of absolute balance point between the two groups (p = 0.090). Lastly, the mean stereoacuity was worse in the older group compared to the younger group (p = 0.002). Discussion Our findings confirm previous results showing differences in contrast sensitivity and stereoacuity with aging. Furthermore, we find a change in interocular suppression that is a possible consequence of the change in contrast sensitivity. It is suggestive of a cortical system that maintains a homeostatic balance in interocular suppression across the lifespan.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".