发表机构
Medical University of Gdansk; Nicolaus Copernicus Hospital, COPERNICUS PL Sp. z o. o.（格但斯克医科大学; 尼古拉·哥白尼医院）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本综述提出临界闪烁融合频率（CFFF）可作为可塑性与非可塑性神经系统的可证伪边界，分析其稳定性来源、对不同训练的反应及相关原则，为理解认知系统在感觉约束下的运作提供新视角。
AI 中文摘要
依赖经验的神经可塑性是适应性行为的基础，但某些感知能力即便经过大量训练仍难以改变。临界闪烁融合频率（CFFF）是闪烁光看起来连续的阈值，是视觉时间加工的基础约束，在成人个体内表现出极强的稳定性，与同一皮层通路加工的高度可塑性空间能力形成鲜明对比。本综述提出一个层级框架，其中CFFF标记了可塑性与非可塑性神经系统之间的边界，通过明确的可证伪标准实现操作化。我们探讨CFFF稳定性是否反映外周约束、丘脑皮层动力学、皮层时间滤波或整合的多级架构，结论是其源于各加工层级的汇聚约束。在初级视觉皮层中，空间属性表现出稳健的感知学习，而时间加工仍受约束，时间关键期比空间关键期更早关闭。重要的是，CFFF对非特异性认知训练无反应，但可被参与大细胞背侧通路的感知学习范式改变，该模式定义而非矛盾了可塑性边界。三项原则强化这种稳定性：感知时钟需要稳定的参考框架以实现时间绑定；代谢约束使更快的加工在能量上不可行；速度-精度权衡表明选择优化了整合窗口。我们认为CFFF可作为特质标记，其与工作记忆精度、元认知精度及容量限制的关联仍是可检验的假设，而非既定发现。将CFFF理解为可塑性边界，阐明了灵活的认知系统如何在刚性的感觉约束内运作。
英文摘要
Experience-dependent plasticity is fundamental to adaptive behaviour, yet the conditions under which basic sensory timing can be modified in adulthood remain poorly specified. Critical flicker fusion frequency (CFFF), the threshold at which flicker is perceived as continuous, is unusually informative here: what fails to change it is as well documented as what does. Reviewing the stability and training literature, we argue CFFF is best characterised neither as non-plastic nor as held near a physiological ceiling, but as modifiable only by a specific class of experience, not by amount. Repeated testing, cognitive training without temporal content, and incoherent-flicker exposure leave the threshold unchanged regardless of duration. By contrast, a narrow class of perceptual-learning paradigms -- pairing coherent directional motion with a task-relevant target -- reportedly raises the threshold substantially, with gains retained at one year in a small subsample. Gains are largest below typical values, as in amblyopia, and absent in normally sighted observers under the same protocol. Three qualifications apply: the evidence rests on small samples; the threshold-raising paradigms have been assessed almost exclusively with heterochromatic flicker photometry rather than luminance-defined CFFF, leaving construct equivalence unestablished; and a minority of untrained controls show comparable changes. We examine whether the restriction originates at peripheral, thalamocortical, or cortical levels; available data do not adjudicate between them. Functional arguments for why such a restriction might be adaptive are offered as rationales, not evidence. Proposed links to working-memory precision and metacognition are stated as predictions; the first test of them was largely negative.
Comments47 pages, 4 figures, 3 tables in Supplementary Material; reframed as an experience-restricted constraint; rebuilt evidence section with prospective predictions; added methodological caveats and new data; revised figures
