The Animacy Continuum in the Human Ventral Vision Pathway
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major theories for explaining the organization of semantic memory in the human brain are premised on the often-observed dichotomous dissociation between living and nonliving objects. Evidence from neuroimaging has been interpreted to suggest that this distinction is reflected in the functional topography of the ventral vision pathway as lateral-to-medial activation gradients. Recently, we observed that similar activation gradients also reflect differences among living stimuli consistent with the semantic dimension of graded animacy. Here, we address whether the salient dichotomous distinction between living and nonliving objects is actually reflected in observable measured brain activity or whether previous observations of a dichotomous dissociation were the illusory result of stimulus sampling biases. Using fMRI, we measured neural responses while participants viewed 10 animal species with high to low animacy and two inanimate categories. Representational similarity analysis of the activity in ventral vision cortex revealed a main axis of variation with high-animacy species maximally different from artifacts and with the least animate species closest to artifacts. Although the associated functional topography mirrored activation gradients observed for animate-inanimate contrasts, we found no evidence for a dichotomous dissociation. We conclude that a central organizing principle of human object vision corresponds to the graded psychological property of animacy with no clear distinction between living and nonliving stimuli. The lack of evidence for a dichotomous dissociation in the measured brain activity challenges theories based on this premise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".