MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992802270 · doi:10.1080/00207450802328367

Global Motion Stimuli and Form-From-Motion Stimuli: Common Characteristics and Differential Activation Patterns

2009· article· en· W1992802270 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick Vachon, Patrice Voss, Maryse Lassonde, Jean‐Maxime Leroux, Boualem Mensour, Gilles Beaudoin, Pierre Bourgouin, Jean‐Paul Guillemot, Franco Leporé

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Neuroscience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital Notre-DameUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)Functional magnetic resonance imagingPsychologyNeuroscienceMotion perceptionMotion (physics)Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Visual perceptionCommunicationPerceptionCognitive psychologyComputer visionPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to explore the areas underlying the processing of two similar motion stimuli that evoke different types of processing. The results indicated that while form-from-motion (FFM) stimuli activated both lateral occipital complex (LOC) and MT complex (MT+), only the LOC remained significantly activated when contrasted with a global motion stimulus (GMS) with different coherence levels. Because of the large number of common characteristics shared between the stimuli, this contrast enabled us to isolate the regions implicated in form processing. The GMS on the other hand only activated MT+, reaching maximal intensity for low coherence. Overall, these data illustrate how two similar motion stimuli can elicit the participation of different cortical visual regions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207