MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017324005 · doi:10.1038/npre.2009.3244.1

TMS, phosphenes and visual mental imagery: A mini-review and a theoretical framework

2009· preprint· en· W2017324005 on OpenAlexaff
István Bókkon, Matthew Kirby, Amedeo D’Angiulli

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Precedings · 2009
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhospheneMental imagePerceptionVisual cortexVision for perception and vision for actionVisual perceptionPsychologyCognitive psychologyDorsumComputer scienceCognitionNeuroscienceTranscranial magnetic stimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We reviewed the existing research linking visual mental imagery and phosphenes induced by TMS. We examined and contrasted conditions (and parameters) under which intensity and amplitude of TMS application at various cortical sites along the ventral and dorsal visual pathways: 1) induces the experience of visual images during perception and mental imagery, 2) interferes with or facilitates perception and/or imagery in concurrent and dual task conditions, 3) correlates with self-reports such as vividness ratings, and 4) reduces or has other selective effects on phosphene threshold in concomitance with perception and imagery. We propose an interpretation of the results of this mini-review within a new biophysical framework for visual mental imagery based on Bokkon’s redox molecular model of explicit optical coding of visual information in early visual areas (V1) and the propagation of conscious visual content at other levels in the stream of visual processing and in other parts of the brain.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.285 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature PrecedingsSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207