Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vision: From Neurons to Cognition Christain Casanova, PhD, and Maurice Ptito, PhD, Editors. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2001. ISBN: 0-444-50586-5, $215.95. Scope: This book is the product of a symposium of the same name held in May 2000 in Montreal. The range of topics is large, ranging from the first chapter on the effects of glutamate in retinal ganglion cells to selective attention. Most of the book is devoted to work based on animal neurophysiology with a de-emphasis of psychophysics, psychology, and neuropsychology. As with all multi-authored books, there is significant variation among the chapters. There are experimental papers that would be at home in the pages of The Journal of Neuroscience, scientific reviews that advance a particular hypothesis, and basic reviews appropriate for a general audience. This veritable potpourri forces the reader to shift gears in moving between chapters, perhaps not a bad thing. One discovers that this is a collection of papers without a theme, except that all involve vision. Strengths: The chapter by Cowey and Walsh on transcranial magnetic stimulation is as good an introduction to the technique for the uninitiated as I have seen anywhere. The article by Pascual-Leone and Hamilton details an intriguing exploration of the question of what exactly it means for visual cortex to be “visual,” by using transcranial magnetic stimulation and functional MRI (fMRI) to study the shift in function of the occipital cortex towards tactile processing in the blind and the blindfolded. Two chapters detail important challenges to the alternate pathway explanations of blindsight. Fendrich, Wessinger, and Gazzaniga review their data on the relation of blindsight to islands of surviving vision, and presumably surviving striate cortex; Faubert and Diacomi describe with mathematical detail the potential for intra-ocular scatter to explain the data supporting blindsight in hemidecorticated patients. This work provides some comfort to Campion, Latto, and Smith who were castigated by the research community for similar arguments in 1982. Schiller and Tehovnik provide a good summary of neurophysiologic data on the role of different cortical regions in generating saccades, complementing the reviews based on human lesions that Pierrot-Deseilligny has written in other periodicals. I found the chapter by Kaas and Lyon on whether primates have an area V3 to be an intriguing example of the vagaries involved in defining a cortical area. Last, Goodale provides another excellent overview of the experiments supporting the notion that extrastriate cortex is divided into a dorsal stream for action preparation and a ventral stream for object recognition. Weaknesses: The range of material covered is uneven. At least five of the chapters are devoted to blindsight, the main research field of one of the editors. On the other hand, there is no treatment of face recognition, and there is only one chapter devoted to reading research and the magnocellular theory of dyslexia. Given the explosion in functional neuroimaging, there is a surprising lack of fMRI data. The one chapter on fMRI and the Stroop task has the odd distinction of being the only functional neuroimaging paper I have seen without any figures. Recommended audience: Pure clinicians will not likely consider this book helpful, and those lacking experience in neurophysiology will find the early chapters heavy reading. However, those who are involved in research on cortical visual dysfunction will find much of interest. Critical appraisal: This book should not be sought as a comprehensive review of visual neuroscience. But it is an interesting “Year 2000” snapshot of the state of vision research, particularly in neurophysiology. It is disappointing that the publishers have taken such a long time to deliver such a time-sensitive book. I would have been happier to have it on my shelf a few years ago. Jason J. S. Barton, MD, PhD, FRCPC University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.010 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".