Modulation of Olfactory Perception by Visual Cortex Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When attempting to identify an object based on smell alone, people often visualize the perceived source of the odorant. This close association between olfactory and visual functions is supported by neuroimaging studies demonstrating activation of visual cortex during performance of purely olfactory tasks. Such activation might simply reflect the correlation between olfactory percepts and the corresponding visual images, or it might reflect a causal contribution of visual processing to olfactory perception. Here we provide evidence in support of the latter possibility. Using repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, we show that stimulating human visual cortex improves performance on a task requiring discrimination among different odor qualities. No significant improvement is found for tasks involving discrimination between intensities of the same odor, from stimulation of auditory cortex, or from "sham" stimulation. These results are thus consistent with a specific visual cortical influence on high-level olfactory perception. They also demonstrate that unimodal perceptual tasks are influenced by processing within cortical areas of other, seemingly unrelated, sensory systems.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".