Brain rCBF and performance in visual imagery tasks: Common and distinct processes
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was designed to discover whether variations in normalised regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) in different brain areas predict variations in performance of different imagery tasks. Positron emission tomography (PET) was used to assess brain activity as 16 participants performed four imagery tasks. These tasks were designed so that performance was particularly sensitive to the participant's ability to form images with high resolution, to generate images from distinct segments, to parse imaged forms into parts while inspecting them, or to transform (rotate) images. Response times and error rates were recorded. Multiple regression analyses revealed that variations in most brain areas predicted variations in performance of only one task, thus demonstrating that the four tasks tap largely independent imagery processes. However, we also found that some underlying processes were recruited by more than one task, particularly those implemented in the occipito‐parietal sulcus, the medial frontal cortex, and Area 18.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it