MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042637654 · doi:10.1002/hbm.20736

A double dissociation between striate and extrastriate visual cortex for pattern motion perception revealed using rTMS

2009· article· en· W2042637654 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin Thompson, Craig Aaen‐Stockdale, Lisa Koski, Robert F. Hess

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsExtrastriate cortexNeurosciencePsychologyVisual cortexTranscranial magnetic stimulationMotion perceptionVisual systemPerceptionStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.832

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207