MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1996534015 · doi:10.1167/14.10.1227

rTMS OVER HUMAN EARLY VISUAL CORTEX DEGRADES LOW LEVEL VISUAL FEATURE MEMORY IN THE REMAPPED, NOT PERCEIVED, VISUAL FIELD DURING A TRANSSACCADIC INTEGRATION TASK

2014· article· en· W1996534015 on OpenAlexaff
Pankhuri Malik, Joost C. Dessing, D. Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccadeStimulus (psychology)Fixation (population genetics)Visual fieldPsychologyFixation pointNeuroscienceVisual memoryVisual cortexEye movementCognitionCognitive psychologyComputer scienceComputer visionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early visual cortex (EVC) is involved in short term visual memory (Harrison and Tong Nat Neurosci. 2009) and remapping of visual targets during saccades (Merriam et al. J. Neurophys. 2007). We proposed that EVC is also involved in transsaccadic integration (TSI) of visual features (Prime et al. Exp Brain Res 2006; J. Neurosci. 2008). Here, we tested this hypothesis with the use of a combined fMRI-rTMS protocol. Participants (n = 8) were required to discriminate orientation change in a Gabor patch across a memory interval during fixation or across saccade that either maintained the stimulus within the same visual field (VF) or changed location to opposite VF. Difficulty levels were set to 75-85% performance for each subject based on a preliminary test. Bifield alternating checkerboard localizer was used to identify peak voxel responses within the left and right EVC corresponding to bottom-left and bottom-right VF. rTMS (10Hz; starting 100 msec after onset of second fixation point) was applied over either of these two locations during the fixation task and saccade task, and effects were compared to behavioral controls and relative to TMS over the opposite VF. Consistent with previous experiments with one object (van de Ven et al. J. Neurosci. 2012), TMS during the fixation task (and for saccades within the same field) had no rTMS effects. rTMS over EVC corresponding to the viewed location of the initial stimulus never yielded an effect in any condition. However, when the saccade caused the remembered stimulus to reverse VF, TMS over the 'incoming' field (i.e. the EVC target site for any putative remapping) revealed a suppressive effect, which increased with saccade size (and/or the eccentricity of remapping into the stimulated hemifield). These results causally implicate human EVC (and/or its network connections) in the gaze centered remapping TSI visual feature information across saccades. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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