MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067695372 · doi:10.1152/jn.00213.2010

Misperceptions of speed are accounted for by the responses of neurons in macaque cortical area MT

2010· article· en· W2067695372 on OpenAlexaff
Pınar Boyraz, Stefan Treue

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacaqueStimulus (psychology)IllusionNeurosciencePerceptionPopulationSubjective constancyNeural activityVisual cortexVisual perceptionPsychologyCommunicationCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In humans, the perceived speed of random dot patterns (RDP) moving within small apertures is faster than that of RDPs moving within larger apertures at the same physical speed. To investigate the neural basis of this illusion, we recorded the responses of direction- and speed-selective neurons in the middle temporal area (MT) of macaque monkeys to stimuli varying in size and speed. Our results show that the preferred speed of MT neurons is slower for smaller stimuli. This effect was larger for neurons preferring faster speeds, matching our psychophysical observation in human subjects that the magnitude of the misperception is larger at higher stimulus speeds. Our physiological data indicate that, across a population of speed-tuned neurons in MT, decreasing the size of a stimulus would shift the activity profile to neurons tuned for higher speeds. Modeling a labeled-line readout of this shifted profile, we show an increased apparent speed, in line with the psychophysical observations. This link strengthens the evidence for a causal role of area MT in speed perception. The systematic shift in tuning curves of single neurons with stimulus size might reflect a general mechanism for feature-mismatch illusions in visual perception.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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