A double dissociation between striate and extrastriate visual cortex for pattern motion perception revealed using rTMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neural mechanisms underlying the integration and segregation of motion signals are often studied using plaid stimuli. These stimuli consist of two spatially coincident dynamic gratings of differing orientations, which are either perceived to move in two unique directions or are integrated by the visual system to elicit the percept of a checkerboard moving in a single direction. Computations pertaining to the motion of the individual component gratings are thought to take place in striate cortex (V1) whereas motion integration is thought to involve neurons in dorsal stream extrastriate visual areas, particularly V5/MT. By combining a psychophysical task that employed plaid stimuli with 1 Hz offline repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), we demonstrated a double dissociation between striate and extrastriate visual cortex in terms of their contributions to motion integration. rTMS over striate cortex increased coherent motion percepts whereas rTMS over extrastriate cortex had the opposite effect. These effects were robust directly after the stimulation administration and gradually returned to baseline within 15 minutes. This double dissociation is consistent with previous patient data and the recent hypothesis that both coherent and transparent motion percepts are supported by the visual system simultaneously and compete for perceptual dominance.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".