MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimal stimulus size maps in the primary visual cortex revealed by optical imaging in cats

2007· article· en· W2080970352 on OpenAlexaff
Christian Casanova, Matthieu P. Vanni, MY VILLENEUVE

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Ophthalmologica Scandinavica · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual cortexStimulus (psychology)StimulationOptical imagingVisual fieldOpticsMedicineFacilitationNeurosciencePhysicsBiophysicsBiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: It is well known that the responses of cells in the primary visual cortex depend on stimulus size. While the stimulus‐size dependency has been well documented at the cellular level, nothing is known about its consequences on global functional maps. Methods: Optical imaging of intrinsic signals in the primary visual cortex was carried out in anesthetized cats. Stimuli consisted of 0.75 to 0.1 cycles per degree square‐wave gratings drifting in 8 directions at 2 to 4 Hz and were presented monocularly. Responses were obtained for different stimulus diameters (3 to 50 deg, and a full screen condition). Results: The minimal visual stimulation necessary to activate areas 17 and 18 was around 3 and 6 deg. in diameter respectively. The activation area of cortex (10‐30 mm2) was dependent of the eccentricity (0 to 30 deg). The pixelwise measure of the signal magnitude in this area showed a modular organisation uncorrelated with the orientation map and stable in time: Half of the pixels had a maximum activation for the full screen stimulation (full field facilitation) and the other half attained their maximum for diameters about 15 and 30 deg of diameter in area 17 and 18 respectively (full field suppression). The suppression by the full screen stimulation was around 30% in both areas. Conclusions: Thus, the maximum activation revealed by optical imaging necessitates the stimulation of a much larger spatial area than that observed with single cells. This difference is likely due to the fact that this method reflects in‐ and out going signals and reveals activity of adjacent neurons being part of intra‐cortical and thalamo‐cortical circuits. Supp: NSERC and CIHR.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Ophthalmologica ScandinavicaSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207