4.3 Article

Preference for binocular concordant visual input in early postnatal development remains despite prior monocular deprivation

期刊

VISION RESEARCH
卷 51, 期 12, 页码 1351-1359

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2011.04.011

关键词

Amblyopia; Visual acuity; Deprivation; Binocular vision; Stereoscopic vision; LGN; Visual cortex; Cats

资金

  1. Canadian Institute of Health Research
  2. NSERC [A7660]
  3. CPR Network of the McDonnell Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Short daily periods of binocular vision, if concordant and continuous, have been shown to outweigh or protect against much longer daily periods of monocular deprivation to allow the development of normal visual acuity in both eyes of kittens. The greater weight placed on binocular visual input could arise because of an inherent bias for binocular input within the visual pathway at all times during development (Binocular model), or else from a more passive process that follows from its match to a highly binocular template at the time mixed daily visual input began (Template model). To distinguish between the predictions of these two models, kittens were monocularly deprived from normal eye-opening until either 4, 5, or 6 weeks of age at which time they received mixed daily visual input for 4 weeks. According to the Template model, the preferred input for these animals would be monocular exposure (ME) because of its match to the monocular template produced by a period of preceding monocular deprivation. However, instead of short daily period of ME offsetting much longer periods of binocular exposure (BE) to perpetuate the dire effects of the prior deprivation, short daily periods of BE promoted significant recovery of vision in the deprived eye. The fit to the Binocular model implies the existence of a robust substrate for binocular vision that is highly resistant to disruption and which could form the substrate for binocular approaches to treatment of amblyopia. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据