MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1992484045 · doi:10.1167/13.9.360

Neural correlates of speed-tuned differences in global motion and motion-defined form perception

2013· article· en· W1992484045 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth J. Meier, Marita Partanen, Ryan Lo, Deborah Giaschi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Motion perceptionMotion (physics)PerceptionPsychophysicsArtificial intelligencePsychologyComputer visionDorsumNeural correlates of consciousnessComputer scienceOrientation (vector space)CommunicationNeuroscienceMathematicsCognitionBiologyGeometryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A popular view of the human visual system is that it comprises at least two somewhat parallel pathways: the ventral stream for form and colour, and the dorsal stream for motion. There is also support for a modified view in which slow speeds of motion are processed ventrally. We recently reported speed-tuned psychophysical differences in the typical and atypical development (due to amblyopia) of global motion and motion-defined form perception (Hayward et al., 2011; Narasimhan & Giaschi, 2012). Specifically, immaturities and deficits were reported for slow but not fast speeds. These different developmental patterns may reflect different cortical systems mediating slow and fast motion perception. The current study used functional MRI in adults with normal vision to examine the neural correlates of our psychophysical tasks. The tasks included global motion direction discrimination and motion-defined rectangle orientation discrimination, each at slow (0.1 deg/s) and fast (5 deg/s) speeds. Stimuli were random-walk dot fields presented using a block design with four conditions: high motion coherence, low motion coherence, 0% motion coherence and stationary dots. Coherence levels were adjusted to match the difficulty level across speeds. We examined each task using a whole-brain voxelwise analysis and a 2 (Speed: Fast, Slow) x 3 (Coherence: High, Low, 0%) within-subjects ANOVA. For both tasks, there were significant main effects of Speed and Coherence, and no interaction between the two. On the global motion task, pairwise comparisons between fast and slow speeds showed activation in occipital and parietal regions, with stronger dorsal activation for fast speeds. On the motion-defined form task, comparisons showed activation in occipital regions, with stronger activation in ventral occipital areas for slow speeds. These results demonstrate differences in the cortical systems activated by fast and slow motion, and suggest a role for the ventral stream in the processing of slow speeds. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→