Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cortical form vision comprises multiple, hierarchically arranged areas with feedforward and feedback interconnections. This complex architecture poses difficulties when scientists attempt to link perceptual phenomena to a particular level of the system. This difficulty has been especially salient in recent research into binocular rivalry alternations, where there is seemingly conflicting evidence for a locus in primary visual cortex or alternatively in higher cortical areas devoted to object perception. In particular, it has been shown that if orthogonal monocular gratings are flickered at 18.0 Hz and switched between eyes at 1.5 Hz, dominance of one grating survives 6–7 eye switches, thus implicating a higher binocular level for rivalry in this case. A nonlinear neural model for rivalry demonstrates that the data require two hierarchic rivalry stages for their explanation. This model demonstrates that competitive inhibition in the monocular rivalry stage is defeated by the 18.0 Hz flicker, 1.5 Hz eye switching stimulus dynamics, thereby revealing properties of a subsequent binocular rivalry stage. This result produces a synthesis of alternative rivalry theories and suggests that neural competition may be a characteristic of multiple cortical areas in the form vision pathway.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".