MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081570266 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhu145

The Impact of Density and Ratio on Object-Ensemble Representation in Human Anterior-Medial Ventral Visual Cortex

2014· article· en· W2081570266 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan S. Cant, Yaoda Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsObject (grammar)Representation (politics)Artificial intelligenceCognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyVisual cortexComputer visionMathematicsNeuroscienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral research has demonstrated that observers can extract summary statistics from ensembles of multiple objects. We recently showed that a region of anterior-medial ventral visual cortex, overlapping largely with the scene-sensitive parahippocampal place area (PPA), participates in object-ensemble representation. Here we investigated the encoding of ensemble density in this brain region using fMRI-adaptation. In Experiment 1, we varied density by changing the spacing between objects and found no sensitivity in PPA to such density changes. Thus, density may not be encoded in PPA, possibly because object spacing is not perceived as an intrinsic ensemble property. In Experiment 2, we varied relative density by changing the ratio of 2 types of objects comprising an ensemble, and observed significant sensitivity in PPA to such ratio change. Although colorful ensembles were shown in Experiment 2, Experiment 3 demonstrated that sensitivity to object ratio change was not driven mainly by a change in the ratio of colors. Thus, while anterior-medial ventral visual cortex is insensitive to density (object spacing) changes, it does code relative density (object ratio) within an ensemble. Object-ensemble processing in this region may thus depend on high-level visual information, such as object ratio, rather than low-level information, such as spacing/spatial frequency.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207