Contrast dependency of VEPs as a function of spatial frequency: the parvocellular and magnocellular contributions to human VEPs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigated the contrast dependency of visual evoked potentials (VEPs) elicited by phase reversing sine wave gratings of varying spatial frequency. Sixty-five trials were recorded for each of 54 conditions: 6 spatial frequencies (0.8, 1.7, 2.8, 4.0, 8.0 and 16.0 c deg(-1)) each presented at 9 contrast levels (2, 4, 8, 11, 16, 23, 32, 64 and 90%). At the lowest spatial frequency, the waveform contained mainly one peak (P1). For spatial frequencies up to 8 c deg(-1), P1 had a characteristic magnocellular contrast response: it appeared at low contrasts, increased rapidly in amplitude with increasing contrast, and saturated at medium contrasts. With increasing spatial frequency, an additional peak (N1) gradually became the more dominant component of the waveform. N1 had a characteristic parvocellular contrast response: it appeared at medium to high contrasts, increased linearly in amplitude with increasing contrast, and did not appear to saturate. The data suggest the contribution of both magnocellular and parvocellular responses at intermediate spatial frequencies. Only at the lowest and highest spatial frequencies tested did magnocellular and parvocellular responses, respectively, appear to dominate.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it