The Impact of Density and Ratio on Object-Ensemble Representation in Human Anterior-Medial Ventral Visual Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".