MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Stereoscopic processing in the human brain as a function of binocular luminance rivalry

2003· article· en· W2024797584 on OpenAlexaff
Andréanne Fortin, Jocelyn Faubert, Alain Ptito, Albert Gjedde, Ron Kupers, Maurice Ptito

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversité du Québec à MontréalMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinocular rivalryLuminanceStereoscopyStereopsisStimulus (psychology)NeurosciencePsychologyBinocular visionPerceptionVisual systemBinocular disparityVisual perceptionComputer visionArtificial intelligenceVisual cortexComputer scienceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the neural substrates of a recent model of human stereodepth perception by obtaining measurements of regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) using PET. Subjects experienced the perceptual properties of stereopsis by viewing rival-luminance stereograms displaying an identical random-dot pattern in their central portion while the backgrounds exhibited correspondent dots contrasting in black/white luminance. The stereoscopic vision induced by retinal luminance rivalry coincided with a significant elevation of rCBF in the dorsal visual pathway. Area V5 (MT) was activated bilaterally by the experimental condition while the remaining active loci were restricted to the right hemisphere. The neural sites that responded to this novel stereoscopic stimulus are similar to those activated by traditional stereograms containing horizontal disparities.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207