MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2066935728 · doi:10.1167/13.9.548

Functionally imaging the magno- and parvocellular layers of the human LGN during binocular rivalry

2013· article· en· W2066935728 on OpenAlexaff
Dea-Wha Soh, Keith A. Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParvocellular cellBinocular rivalryLateral geniculate nucleusNeurosciencePsychologyRivalryVisual perceptionPerceptionExtrastriate cortexVisual cortexOpticsPhysicsNucleus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction. Binocular rivalry occurs when conflicting images are presented to the eyes dichoptically. Rather than being perceived as one cohesive image, the two images compete for perceptual dominance, resulting in the images alternating in perceptual awareness. Neural explanations for this phenomenon have been debated; our interest was to determine the involvement of the magnocellular (M) and parvocellular (P) processing streams in rivalry. The lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) is involved in dominance and suppression of visual input, consists of two ventral M layers and four dorsal P layers, and is the only place in the brain where these streams are spatially disjoint. Previous research has shown that activity in the LGN layers innervated by the suppressed eye is also suppressed during rivalry, but it is not clear whether both M and P streams are equally involved. Methods. Participants were scanned using a Siemens 3T MRI scanner. Functional EPI data were registered to a mean series of high-resolution proton density weighted images on which it is possible to measure the boundaries of the LGN and thus localize the M and P layers. Stimuli were presented through an Avotec binocular goggle system that allowed independent stimulation of each eye. The rivalrous stimuli were two rotating (1 Hz period) discs of high-contrast sinusoidal gratings that varied with regards to colour (red vs. green) and direction of rotation. Subjects held down a button to indicate which of the two stimuli was currently being perceived. Event-related averages were calculated from the functional data within the LGN. Results. The activation strengths of the M and P streams were compared. Both streams were found to participate equally in rivalry. Discussion. These results have implications for potential treatments for clinical disorders that result from M-cell deficits (e.g., dyslexia) and attentional disorders (e.g., attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, neglect syndromes). Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicGlaucoma and retinal disorders→French-language works237,207→