MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968427115 · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00190

Figure–Ground Representation and Its Decay in Primary Visual Cortex

2012· article· en· W1968427115 on OpenAlexaff
Lars Strother, Cheryl Lavell, Tutis Vilis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyVisual cortexRepresentation (politics)Figure–groundCortex (anatomy)Cognitive psychologyNeuroscienceCommunicationCognitive sciencePerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used fMRI to study figure-ground representation and its decay in primary visual cortex (V1). Human observers viewed a motion-defined figure that gradually became camouflaged by a cluttered background after it stopped moving. V1 showed positive fMRI responses corresponding to the moving figure and negative fMRI responses corresponding to the static background. This positive-negative delineation of V1 "figure" and "background" fMRI responses defined a retinotopically organized figure-ground representation that persisted after the figure stopped moving but eventually decayed. The temporal dynamics of V1 "figure" and "background" fMRI responses differed substantially. Positive "figure" responses continued to increase for several seconds after the figure stopped moving and remained elevated after the figure had disappeared. We propose that the sustained positive V1 "figure" fMRI responses reflected both persistent figure-ground representation and sustained attention to the location of the figure after its disappearance, as did subjects' reports of persistence. The decreasing "background" fMRI responses were relatively shorter-lived and less biased by spatial attention. Our results show that the transition from a vivid figure-ground percept to its disappearance corresponds to the concurrent decay of figure enhancement and background suppression in V1, both of which play a role in form-based perceptual memory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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