MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consecutive TMS-fMRI Reveals an Inverse Relationship in BOLD Signal between Object and Scene Processing

2013· article· en· W2017639577 on OpenAlexaff
Caitlin Mullin, Jennifer K. E. Steeves

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationTranscranial magnetic stimulationObject (grammar)Computer visionCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionPsychologyArtificial intelligenceContext (archaeology)Representation (politics)Visual cortexScene statisticsComputer scienceFusiform face areaNeuroscienceCommunicationPerceptionPattern recognition (psychology)StimulationFace perceptionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The human visual system is capable of recognizing an infinite number of scenes containing an abundance of rich visual information. There are several cortical regions associated with the representation of a scene, including those specialized for object processing (the lateral occipital area [LO]) and for the spatial layout of scenes (the parahippocampal place area). Although behavioral studies have demonstrated that these image categories (scenes and objects) exert an influence on each other such that scene context can facilitate object identification or that scene categorization can be impaired by the presence of a salient object, little is known about the apparent cortical interactions involved in building the conscious representation of a complete scene. It has been shown that transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to the left LO disrupts object categorization but facilitates scene categorization. Here, we show that this effect is also reflected by changes in the BOLD signal such that TMS to the left LO decreases BOLD signal at the stimulation site (LO) while viewing objects and increases BOLD signal in the left PPA when viewing scenes. This suggests that these regions, although likely not on a strict hierarchy of bottom-up coding, share functional communication likely in the form of inhibitory connections.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207