Cortical Specialization for Processing First- and Second-order Motion
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
Distinct mechanisms underlying the visual perception of luminance- (first-order) and contrast-defined (second-order) motion have been proposed from electrophysiological, human psychophysical and neurological studies; however a cortical specialization for these mechanisms has proven elusive. Here human brain imaging combined with psychophysical methods was used to assess cortical specializations for processing these two kinds of motion. A common stimulus construction was employed, controlling for differences in spatial and temporal properties, psychophysical performance and attention. Distinct cortical regions have been found preferentially processing either first- or second-order motion, both in occipital and parietal lobes, producing the first physiological evidence in humans to support evidence from psychophysical studies, brain lesion sites and computational models. These results provide evidence for the idea that first-order motion is computed in V1 and second-order motion in later occipital visual areas, and additionally suggest a functional dissociation between these two kinds of motion beyond the occipital lobe.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it