MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2084513315 · doi:10.1167/2.7.45

Differing viewpoint effects in the ventral and dorsal visual streams revealed using fMRI

2010· article· en· W2084513315 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas W. James, G. Keith Humphrey, Joseph S. Gati, Ravi S. Menon, Melvyn A. Goodale

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDorsumVision for perception and vision for actionNeuroscienceObject (grammar)Priming (agriculture)Cognitive neuroscience of visual object recognitionPsychologyPosterior parietal cortexNeuroimagingComputer visionCommunicationVisual systemArtificial intelligenceVisual cortexComputer scienceAnatomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuroimaging studies using object stimuli have typically focused on activation produced in the ventral occipital and temporal cortices, which are part of the ventral stream of visual processing. Many of these studies, however, also report activation in a region of the posterior parietal cortex, a part of the dorsal stream, that is activated by object stimuli. We investigated the contribution of this parietal region to object viewing, by using a priming paradigm in combination with high-field fMRI. Subjects were repeatedly presented with images of common and novel objects. Some of the repeated images were identical to the initial presentation and some of the images were of the same objects, but rotated in depth. We found that area LO, part of the ventral stream, showed viewpoint invariance, responding the same way to identical and rotated images of objects presented earlier. This result corresponded to behavioural data that showed equivalent performance with identical and rotated images. Area cIPS, part of the dorsal stream, showed priming only with identical images, and appeared to treat rotated images as new objects. This difference in the pattern of priming-related activation in the two areas may reflect the respective roles of the ventral and dorsal streams in object recognition and object-directed action. This difference may also reflect the use of object-based versus observer-based frames of reference in the ventral and dorsal streams.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicFace Recognition and Perception→French-language works237,207→