MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contrast adaptation is spatial frequency specific in mouse primary visual cortex

2015· article· en· W1700048206 on OpenAlexafffund
Jillian L. King, Matthew Lowe, Nathan A. Crowder

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsContrast (vision)NeuroscienceVisual cortexAdaptation (eye)Spatial frequencyPerceptionPhotic StimulationVisual perceptionPsychologyBiologyArtificial intelligenceComputer sciencePhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contrast adaptation, generated by prolonged viewing of a high contrast spatial pattern, is known to reduce perceptual sensitivity to subsequently presented stimuli of similar spatial frequency (SF). Neural correlates of this pattern-specific contrast adaptation have been described in several classic studies in cat primary visual cortex (V1). These results have also recently been extended to mice, which is a genetically manipulable animal model. Here we attempt to parse the potential mechanisms contributing to this phenomenon by determining whether the SF specificity of contrast adaptation observed in mouse V1 neurons depends on the spike rate elicited by the adapting gratings. We found that adapting stimuli that drove a neuron more strongly generally produced more adaptation, implicating an intrinsic or fatigue-like process. Importantly, we also observed that slightly stronger contrast adaptation was produced when the adapting SF matched the test SF even when matched and nonmatched adapting gratings elicited similar spike rates indicating extrinsic or network processes contribute as well.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207