Critical Spatial Frequencies for Illusory Contour Processing in Early Visual Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single neurons in primate V2 and cat A18 exhibit identical orientation tuning for sinewave grating and illusory contour stimuli. This cue invariance is also manifested in similar orientation maps to these stimuli, but in V1/A17 the illusory contour maps appear reversed. We hypothesized that this map reversal depends upon the spatial frequencies of the inducers in the illusory contours, relative to the spatial selectivities of these brain areas. We employed intrinsic signal optical imaging to measure orientation maps in cat A17/18 to illusory contours with inducers at spatial frequencies from 0.15 to 1.6 cpd. A17 illusory contour maps were indeed reversed compared with grating-driven maps for inducer spatial frequencies <1.3 cpd, whereas A18 maps were invariant. Simulations based on known neurophysiology demonstrated that map reversal can arise from linear filtering, and map invariance can be explained by a nonlinear (filter-rectify-filter) mechanism. The simulation also correctly predicted that A17 could show invariant maps when the inducer spatial frequency is sufficiently high (1.6 cpd), and that A18 maps could reverse at lower inducer frequencies (0.18 cpd). Thus, the map reversal or invariance to illusory contours depends critically on the relationship of the inducer spatial frequencies to the spatial filtering properties of neurons in each brain area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".