MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112662362 · doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.2.266

Maintenance of Visual Stability in the Human Posterior Parietal Cortex

2007· article· en· W2112662362 on OpenAlexaff
Erik C. Chang, Tony Ro

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Psychological AssociationAmerican Psychological Foundation
KeywordsIntraparietal sulcusPsychologySaccadic maskingPosterior parietal cortexSaccadeTranscranial magnetic stimulationNeuroscienceEye movementVisual cortexParietal lobeNeuroimagingCognitive psychologyStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Visual stability refers to our stable visuospatial perceptions despite the unstable visual input caused by saccades. Functional neuroimaging results, studies on patients with posterior parietal cortex (PPC) lesions, and single-unit recordings in the lateral intraparietal sulcus of primates indirectly suggest that the PPC might be a potential locus of visual stability through its involvement with spatial remapping. Here we directly explored the role of the PPC in visual stability by applying transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) while participants performed a perisaccadic displacement detection task. We show that TMS over the PPC but not a frontal control site alters sensitivity to displacement detection when administered just before contralateral saccades and that a general impairment in attention or in the perception of apparent motion cannot account for the decreased sensitivity. The specific relationship between the timing of TMS and saccade direction demonstrates that saccadic suppression of displacement (SSD) is likely a consequence of noisy contralateral spatial representations in the PPC around the time of a saccade. The same mechanism may keep the unstable visual world in the temporal proximity of saccades from reaching our consciousness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207