Assessing lateral interactions within the early visual areas of adults with autism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. It has been suggested that atypical visuo-spatial perception in autism may originate from altered local connectivity mediating the response properties of early visual feature detectors. The goal of this study was to assess lateral interactions between neurons within early visual areas in autism by measuring steady-state visual evoked potentials (ssVEPs) elicited by windmill-dartboard (Ratliff & Zemon, 1982) and lateral masking paradigms (Polat et al, 1997). Method. Nine participants with autism and 9 typically developing participants, matched for full-scale IQ and age (18-30 years), were asked to passively view visual stimuli during windmill-dartboard and lateral masking paradigms while ssVEPs from four electrodes over the occipital cortex (Oz, POz, O1 and O2) were collected. For the windmill-dartboard paradigm, first- and second-harmonic components of the steady-state responses were used to calculate indices reflecting facilitatory (FI) and inhibitory (SI) cortical interactions for all participants. For lateral masking paradigm, ssVEP data was collected while participants viewed Gabor patches presented either in isolation (target), or flanked by collinear Gabors at different contrasts (8, 16, 30%) at target-flanker distances (1.5λ, 3 λ, 6 λ). Results. Group differences were not evidenced for either FI or SI cortical interaction indices obtained during the windmill-dartboard task. For the lateral masking paradigm, an expected difference between collinear and orthogonal Gabors (presented at a contrast of 16%) at target-flanker distances of 1.5 λ was found in the control group, p = 0.018. Importantly, this difference was not evidenced for the autism group. Conclusion. Our results suggest that FI and SI cortical interactions within early visual brain areas are similar in autism and control groups. However, group differences on the lateral masking paradigm are consistent with the hypotheses that lateral connectivity within early visual areas is atypical in autism, and could be considered a possible early neural origin for altered perception in autism. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2014
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".