Depression and Later Enhancement of the Critical Flicker Frequency during Prolonged Monocular Deprivation

Zubek, John P.; Bross, Michael

doi:10.1126/science.176.4038.1045

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…showed that monocular deprivation from high spatial frequencies increased visual evoked potentials (VEP) in the non-deprived eye during the period of deprivation and reduced the response of the deprived eye. On the other hand, Zubek et al 10,. showed changes in critical flicker frequency (initially a decrease followed by an increase) in the non-occluded eye over the course of 24-hour period of visual deprivation whereas the deprived eye showed no change.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Ocular dominance plasticity: inhibitory interactions and contrast equivalence

Spiegel

Baldwin

Hess

2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Brief monocular occlusion results in a transient change in ocular dominance, such that the previously patched eye makes a stronger contribution to the binocular percept after occlusion. The previously unpatched eye therefore makes a correspondingly weaker contribution to the binocular sum. To shed light on the mechanism underlying this change we investigate how the relationship between the perception of fusion, suppression, and diplopia changes after short-term monocular deprivation. Results show that fusible stimuli seen by the unpatched eye are actively suppressed as a result of patching and that this can be reversed by an interocular contrast imbalance. This suggests that dichoptic inhibition plays an important role in ocular dominance changes due to short-term occlusion, possibly by altering the contrast gain prior to binocular summation. This may help explain why this form of plasticity affects the perception of both fusible and rivalrous stimuli.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Ocular dominance plasticity: inhibitory interactions and contrast equivalence

Spiegel

Baldwin

Hess

2017

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Defense interests did not dictate his science; like many Canadian researchers at the time, for Zubek the DRB was simply one available source of funding. By the mid‐1960s, Zubek's research had become hyperspecialized, focusing on minute physiological changes in experimental animals following sensory deprivation (Zubek & Bross, , ; Woodburn Heron, letter to John Zubek, February 15, 1971, Box 5, Folder 6, JZ Collection, UMA) . Zubek found himself in the center of controversy over the misuse of psychological research to further interrogation, and ultimately, as a form of torture.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alone Again: John Zubek and the Troubled History of Sensory Deprivation Research

Raz¹

2013

J. Hist. Behav. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 1950s, sensory deprivation research emerged as an influential new field for behavioral science researchers, supported by the intelligence community. Within a few years, deprivation research had become ubiquitous; images of sensory deprivation were invoked to explain a wide range of phenomena, from religious revelations to the very structure of psychoanalysis. Yet within a decade and a half, this field of research became implicated in cases of torture and abuse. This article examines the history of University of Manitoba psychologist John Zubek, who remained one of the final researchers still conducting sensory deprivation research in the 1970s. It raises questions on how might it be possible to successfully and cautiously perform controversial research.

show abstract

“…After patching the dominant eye of human Ss, Zubek and Bross (1972) have demonstrated an initial depression in the critical flicker frequency (CFF) of the nonoccluded eye, followed by an enhancement in performance. No such effects were observed in the occluded eye at corresponding times.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%