MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971793689 · doi:10.1167/8.6.723

Adaptation to radial frequency patterns in the lateral occipital cortex

2010· article· en· W1971793689 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa R. Betts, Simon Rainville, H. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)NeuroscienceCortex (anatomy)PsychologyGeologyAnatomyCommunicationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: We used functional magnetic resonance imaging adaptation (fMRIa) and radial frequency (RF) stimuli to investigate shape coding in the lateral occipital complex (LOC) an important cortical area that mediates integration of local contour information. An RF pattern consists of a closed contour whose radius sinusoidally deviates from circularity as determined by frequency (i.e., the periodicity of bumps around the circle) and amplitude (i.e., bump size). As a Fourier basis set, the family of RF patterns defines a large space of unique closed-contour shapes. Methods: BOLD responses in LOC were collected for 7 participants on a 3T GE scanner according to standard fMRI techniques. LOC was localized by contrasting BOLD responses to scrambled and non-scrambled objects. Results: BOLD responses were lowest for blocks of purely circular stimuli than for all other blocks consisting of single RF contours with fixed shape and amplitude. Blocks in which contours varied in amplitude and/or shape exhibited varying degrees of adaptation release with respect to fixed-shape-and-amplitude blocks. Conclusions: Results are consistent with a population code in which closed-contour shapes are represented as deviations from a circularity prototype. In particular, we interpret weaker BOLD responses to pure circles as an instance of efficient predictive coding that reduces redundancy between neural outputs. We are further characterizing the topology of BOLD response in RF space and the corresponding shape selectivity of population subunits in LOC.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207