fMRI measures of interocular luminance masking reflect rapid binocular plasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Monocular visual function affected by fellow eye viewing condition: masking effect. • Reduced luminance (black; not gray) in fellow eye produces higher BOLD response. • Luminance masking is modulated by the spatio-temporal features of test stimuli. • Adaptation to mask reduces the masking effect, increasing BOLD response over time. Recent behavioral studies suggest that rapid short-term plasticity in adult binocular vision may occur over several minutes. In the example of adult monocular patching, a difference in luminance between the eyes may cause plasticity. Analogous work in animal models exists, but relevant physiological data from humans is sparse. We measured human binocular function with fMRI by determining how the BOLD signal evoked by test stimuli in one eye is modified by the effects of fellow eye stimulation. The tested eye viewed moving checkerboard patterns that varied in contrast. Three fellow eye viewing conditions were compared over various time periods: black screen, gray screen, or the same checkerboard as the tested eye. Overall, the same checkerboard in both eyes elicited the highest brain activity in early visual cortices and area MT+. In addition, we found higher brain activity for a black screen compared to gray screen in early visual areas, consistent with luminance masking. However, this effect is absent if the luminance presented to the fellow eye changes several times per minute, rather than remaining constant for several minutes. We suggest that longer viewing periods allow for greater fellow eye adaptation effects to accumulate over time. Results are discussed along with previous studies of monocular patching and contrast normalization models of vision.
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) | 0.002 | 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".