MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039228763 · doi:10.1167/14.10.448

Synesthesia and Lateral Inhibition: A Case Study

2014· article· en· W2039228763 on OpenAlexaff
Dulce Arias, Mathieu Simard, Dave Saint‐Amour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynesthesiaPsychologyStimulus (psychology)FacilitationNeuroscienceLingual gyrusContrast (vision)ElectroencephalographyPerceptAudiologyPerceptionStimulus modalityVisual perceptionCognitive psychologyCrossmodalCognitionMedicineArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Synesthesia is a perceptual phenomenon when a stimulus in one sensory modality elicits an additional percept in the same or in another modality (e.g., when black letters and numbers are perceived as color graphemes or when sounds inducing color percepts). Although the underlying mechanisms of synesthesia are not known, it is largely thought that the synesthetic brain is characterized by a hyperconnectivity between different regions including the visual areas. Lateral inhibition (LI), which involves inhibitory local interactions between neighboring neurons in the visual brain, might be a new approach to explore the nature of the putative abnormal connectivity in synesthesia. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess brain responses associated with lateral inhibition in synesthesia using scalp-recorded EEG. Methods: Steady-state visual evoked potentials (ssVEPs) were recorded from Oz in a color-grapheme synesthete female (27 years old) and in 12 control non-synesthetes using the windmill/dartboard paradigm (Zemon and Ratliff, PNAS, 1982). Stimuli consisted in four radial contiguous patterns, two static and two dynamic that were presented at a reversal-contrast frequency of 4.28 Hz and 30% contrast. Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) analysis was conducted to extract the fundamental and the second harmonic of ssVEPs in order to calculate the suppression and facilitation LI indices. Then, z-scores were computed for the synesthete subject in relation with the non-synesthete subjects. Results: No significant difference in the suppression or facilitation index was found. Conclusion: Lateral inhibition processing in the visual cortex is not abnormal in synesthesia. This case-study finding challenges the nature of the hyperconnectivity hypothesis in synesthesia. 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 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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designCase report
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207