TMS to the Lateral Occipital Cortex Disrupts Object Processing but Facilitates Scene Processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of brain-damaged patients and advancements in neuroimaging have lead to the discovery of discrete brain regions that process visual image categories, such as objects and scenes. However, how these visual image categories interact remains unclear. For example, is scene perception simply an extension of object perception, or can global scene "gist" be processed independently of its component objects? Specifically, when recognizing a scene such as an "office," does one need to first recognize its individual objects, such as the desk, chair, lamp, pens, and paper to build up the representation of an "office" scene? Here, we show that temporary interruption of object processing through repetitive TMS to the left lateral occipital cortex (LO), an area known to selectively process objects, impairs object categorization but surprisingly facilitates scene categorization. This result was replicated in a second experiment, which assessed the temporal dynamics of this disruption and facilitation. We further showed that repetitive TMS to left LO significantly disrupted object processing but facilitated scene processing when stimulation was administered during the first 180 msec of the task. This demonstrates that the visual system retains the ability to process scenes during disruption to object processing. Moreover, the facilitation of scene processing indicates disinhibition of areas involved in global scene processing, likely caused by disrupting inhibitory contributions from the LO. These findings indicate separate but interactive pathways for object and scene processing and further reveal a network of inhibitory connections between these visual brain regions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".