MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966105571 · doi:10.1152/jn.00165.2011

Contrast sensitivity of MT receptive field centers and surrounds

2011· article· en· W1966105571 on OpenAlexafffund
James Man Git Tsui, Christopher C. Pack

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReceptive fieldNeuroscienceVisual cortexSurround suppressionStimulus (psychology)Extrastriate cortexMacaquePsychologyBinocular neuronsContrast (vision)Local field potentialVisual perceptionPhysicsCognitive psychologyOpticsPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurons throughout the visual system have receptive fields with both excitatory and suppressive components. The latter are responsible for a phenomenon known as surround suppression, in which responses decrease as a stimulus is extended beyond a certain size. Previous work has shown that surround suppression in the primary visual cortex depends strongly on stimulus contrast. Such complex center-surround interactions are thought to relate to a variety of functions, although little is known about how they affect responses in the extrastriate visual cortex. We have therefore examined the interaction of center and surround in the middle temporal (MT) area of the macaque (Macaca mulatta) extrastriate cortex by recording neuronal responses to stimuli of different sizes and contrasts. Our findings indicate that surround suppression in MT is highly contrast dependent, with the strongest suppression emerging unexpectedly at intermediate stimulus contrasts. These results can be explained by a simple model that takes into account the nonlinear contrast sensitivity of the neurons that provide input to MT. The model also provides a qualitative link to previous reports of a topographic organization of area MT based on clusters of neurons with differing surround suppression strength. We show that this organization can be detected in the gamma-band local field potentials (LFPs) and that the model parameters can predict the contrast sensitivity of these LFP responses. Overall our results show that surround suppression in area MT is far more common than previously suspected, highlighting the potential functional importance of the accumulation of nonlinearities along the dorsal visual pathway.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207