MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Form-Cue Invariant Second-Order Neuronal Responses to Contrast Modulation in Primate Area V2

2014· article· en· W2056858219 on OpenAlexafffund
LI Guang-xing, Zhimo Yao, Zhengchun Wang, Nini Yuan, Vargha Talebi, Jiabo Tan, Yong Wang, Yifeng Zhou, Curtis L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSpatial frequencyPsychophysicsMacaqueLuminanceSurround suppressionReceptive fieldStimulus (psychology)Contrast (vision)Modulation (music)GratingOpticsNeuroscienceFilter (signal processing)PhysicsCommunicationPerceptionPsychologyComputer scienceVisual perceptionComputer visionAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fundamental task of the visual system is to extract figure-ground boundaries between images of objects, which in natural scenes are often defined not only by luminance differences but also by "second-order" contrast or texture differences. Responses to contrast modulation (CM) and other second-order stimuli have been extensively studied in human psychophysics, but the neuronal substrates of second-order responses in nonhuman primates remain poorly understood. In this study, we have recorded single neurons in area V2 of macaque monkeys, using both CM patterns as well as conventional luminance modulation (LM) gratings. CM stimuli were constructed from stationary sine wave grating carrier patterns, which were modulated by drifting envelope gratings of a lower spatial frequency. We found approximately one-third of visually responsive V2 neurons responded to CM stimuli with a pronounced selectivity to carrier spatial frequencies, and often orientations, that were clearly outside the neurons' passbands for LM gratings. These neurons were "form-cue invariant" in that their tuning to CM envelope spatial frequency and orientation was very similar to that for LM gratings. Neurons were tuned to carrier spatial frequencies that were typically 2-4 octaves higher than their optimal envelope spatial frequencies, similar to results from human psychophysics. These results are distinct from CM responses arising from surround suppression, but could be understood in terms of a filter-rectify-filter model. Such neurons could provide a functionally useful and explicit representation of segmentation boundaries as well as a plausible neural substrate for human perception of second-order boundaries.

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)0.004
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 score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations56
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207