MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distinct Familiarity-Based Response Patterns for Faces and Buildings in Perirhinal and Parahippocampal Cortex

2013· article· en· W2062081744 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris B. Martin, D. A. McLean, Edward B. O’Neil, Stefan Köhler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPerirhinal cortexPsychologyCognitive psychologyRecallRecognition memoryStimulus (psychology)Parahippocampal gyrusCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionEpisodic memoryTemporal lobeObject (grammar)CognitionNeuroscienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An unresolved question in our understanding of the medial temporal lobes is how functional differences between structures pertaining to stimulus category relate to the distinction between item-based and contextually based recognition-memory processes. Specifically, it remains unclear whether perirhinal cortex (PrC) supports item-based familiarity signals for all stimulus categories or whether parahippocampal cortex (PhC) may also play a role for stimulus categories that are known to engage this structure in other task contexts. Here, we used multivoxel pattern analyses of fMRI data to compare patterns of activity in humans that are associated with the perceived familiarity of faces, buildings, and chairs. During scanning, participants judged the familiarity of previously studied and novel items from all three categories. Instances in which recognition was based on recollection were removed from all analyses. In right PrC, we found patterns of activity that distinguished familiar from novel faces. By contrast, in right PhC, we observed such patterns for buildings. Familiarity signals for chairs were present in both structures but shared little overlap with the patterns observed for faces and buildings on a more fine-grained scale. In the hippocampus, we found no evidence for familiarity signals for any object category. Our findings show that both PrC and PhC contribute to the assessment of item familiarity. They suggest that PhC does not only represent episodic context but can also represent item information for some object categories in recognition-memory decisions. In turn, our findings also indicate that the involvement of PrC in representing item familiarity is not ubiquitous.

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)0.002
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 score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations77
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207