Binocular combination under asynchronous viewing conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the standard model, two main processes underlie binocular combination: binocular summation, whereby the input from each eye is added together, and interocular suppression, whereby each eye suppresses the other’s input. To function properly, both processes require cooperation between the eyes, both in terms of the spatial information they contribute, and presumably, the temporal synchronization of information processing. Previous research indicates that de-synchronization of the ocular inputs generally impairs binocular vision. However, the effect of varying degrees of de-synchronization, and whether summation and suppression are affected to the same degree, is not known. Our goal was to compare the effect of precisely de-synchronizing the ocular inputs on psychophysical measures of summation and suppression. To measure interocular suppression, we employed a dichoptic masking paradigm using a two-alternative-force-choice task. A Gabor target and noise mask were displayed on a passive 3D screen at the same spatial location but with a variable temporal interval between them. To achieve a high degree of temporal precision, stimulus presentations were brief, lasting 8.3ms. Target detection thresholds were measured for each temporal interval between the target and the mask using a 2-up 1-down staircase. For binocular summation, two targets with identical adjustable contrasts were presented dichoptically at different inter-stimulus intervals. The detection threshold of the 2 targets was measured using a 2-up 1-down staircase. Dichoptically, threshold elevation tended to increase with increasing asynchronicity, particularly when the mask followed the target. Summation index tended to decrease with increasing asynchronicity. At a low spatial frequency, effects were larger and more consistent across tasks. Our findings demonstrate that desynchronization of the ocular inputs impacts both main processes underlying binocular combination and provides insight into the binocular deficits observed in conditions associated with natural interocular asynchronicity, such as 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".