MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1947977597 · doi:10.1002/brb3.408

Functional localization of the human color center by decreased water displacement using diffusion‐weighted <scp>fMRI</scp>

2015· article· en· W1947977597 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca J. Williams, David C. Reutens, Julia Hocking

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Behavior · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsVisual cortexFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeurosciencePsychologyCortex (anatomy)Human brain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Decreased water displacement following increased neural activity has been observed using diffusion-weighted functional MRI (DfMRI) at high b-values. The physiological mechanisms underlying the diffusion signal change may be unique from the standard blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) contrast and closer to the source of neural activity. Whether DfMRI reflects neural activity more directly than BOLD outside the primary cerebral regions remains unclear. METHODS: Colored and achromatic Mondrian visual stimuli were statistically contrasted to functionally localize the human color center Area V4 in neurologically intact adults. Spatial and temporal properties of DfMRI and BOLD activation were examined across regions of the visual cortex. RESULTS: At the individual level, DfMRI activation patterns showed greater spatial specificity to V4 than BOLD. The BOLD activation patterns were more prominent in the primary visual cortex than DfMRI, where activation was localized to the ventral temporal lobe. Temporally, the diffusion signal change in V4 and V1 both preceded the corresponding hemodynamic response, however the early diffusion signal change was more evident in V1. CONCLUSIONS: DfMRI may be of use in imaging applications implementing cognitive subtraction paradigms, and where highly precise individual functional localization is required.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain and BehaviorSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207