Motion-Defined Form Perception in Deprivation Amblyopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess motion-defined form perception, including the association with clinical and sensory factors that may drive performance, in each eye of children with deprivation amblyopia due to unilateral cataract. Methods: Coherence thresholds for orientation discrimination of motion-defined form were measured using a staircase procedure in 30 children with deprivation amblyopia and 59 age-matched controls. Visual acuity, stereoacuity, fusion, and interocular suppression were also measured. Fixation stability and fellow-eye global motion thresholds were measured in a subset of children. Results: Motion-defined form coherence thresholds were elevated in 90% of children with deprivation amblyopia when viewing with the amblyopic eye and in 40% when viewing with the fellow eye. The deficit was similar in children with a cataract that had been visually significant at birth (congenital) and in children for whom the cataract appeared later in infancy or childhood (developmental). Poorer motion-defined form perception in amblyopic eyes was associated with poorer visual acuity, poorer binocular function, greater interocular suppression, and the presence of nystagmus. Fellow-eye deficits were not associated with any of these factors, but a temporo-nasal asymmetry for global motion perception in favor of nasalward motion suggested a general disruption in motion perception. Conclusions: Deficits in motion-defined form perception are common in children with deprivation amblyopia and may reflect a problem in motion processing that relies on binocular mechanisms.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".