Flash Suppression Reveals an Additional Nonvisual Extrastriate Contribution for Amblyopic Suppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: A growing body of evidence suggests that anomalous binocular interactions underlie the deficits in amblyopia, but their nature and neural basis are still not fully understood. Methods: We examined the behavioral and neural correlates of interocular suppression in 13 adult amblyopes and 13 matched controls using a flash suppression paradigm while recording steady-state visual evoked potentials. The strength of suppression was manipulated by changing the contrast (10%, 20%, 30%, or 100%) of the flash stimulus, or the suppressor, presented either in the dominant (fellow) or nondominant (amblyopic) eye. Results: At the behavioral level, interocular suppression in normal observers was found, regardless of the eye origin of the flash onset. However, the pattern of suppression in the amblyopes was not symmetric, meaning that the suppression from the dominant eye was stronger, supporting a putative chronic suppression of the amblyopic eye. Interestingly, the amblyopic eye was able to suppress the dominant eye but only at the highest contrast level. At the electrophysiology level, suppression of the steady-state visual evoked potential responses in both groups in all conditions was similar over the occipital region, but differed over the frontal region. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that, although suppression in amblyopia involves an imbalanced interaction between the inputs to the two eyes in the visual cortex, there is also involvement of nonvisual extrastriate areas.
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 | 0.001 | 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".