MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2020164048 · doi:10.1167/8.6.398

Rapid extraction of stimulus phase information during complex object processing

2010· article· en· W2020164048 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume A. Rousselet, Cyril Pernet, P. Bennett, A. Sekuler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)KurtosisPattern recognition (psychology)SkewnessArtificial intelligencePsychologyElectroencephalographyAmplitudePerceptionScalpSpeech recognitionComputer scienceMathematicsAudiologyCommunicationStatisticsCognitive psychologyPhysicsNeuroscienceOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most ERP studies of object and face perception have focused on the N170, an ERP component that is systematically larger for faces compared to objects in the time window 130–200 ms. We recently demonstrated that N170 effects cannot be explained by differences in amplitude spectrum or stimulus variance, but rather depend on phase information (Rousselet, Husk, Bennett & Sekuler, Journal of Vision 2005, NeuroImage 2007). In the present study, we examined the phase tuning function of EEG single-trials evoked by complex objects. Stimulus phase was systematically manipulated in a parametric design, with 11 steps of phase information, ranging from 0% (noise), to 100% (original stimulus). Contrast and amplitude spectrum were maintained constant across noise levels. Subjects (n=8) had to discriminate between 2 faces, a task orthogonal to the stimulus manipulation. ERPs from each subject were entered into a multiple linear regression model including stimulus phase information, skewness, kurtosis and their interactions as regressors. This simple model explained up to 48% of the variance on average (min=20%, max=67%), with scalp topography very similar to the one of early visual evoked responses. Sharp non-monotonic changes in EEG activity occurred between 100–150 ms. Theses changes were explained by an increased phase sensitivity modulated by the image kurtosis, an interaction that peaked around the latency of the N170. A control experiment using the same task but pink noise (1/f) textures instead of faces did not show EEG phase sensitivity, demonstrating that the effect is not task related. However, wavelet textures preserving higher-order image statistics (skewness and kurtosis) as well as multi-scale phase correlations elicited significant phase sensitivity modulations, albeit overall much weaker and delayed compared to face stimuli. These results suggest that a large part of early responses to complex objects like faces correspond to a rapid bottom-up extraction of higher-order image statistics.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.335 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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