MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134247850 · doi:10.1017/s0952523805221120

The direction-selective contrast response of area 18 neurons is different for first- and second-order motion

2005· article· en· W2134247850 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy Ledgeway, Chang’an A. Zhan, Aaron Johnson, Yuning Song, Curtis L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueVisual Neuroscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsContrast (vision)CRFSStimulus (psychology)Visual cortexLuminanceSine waveMotion perceptionEnvelope (radar)Spatial frequencyReceptive fieldNeuronNeurosciencePhysicsOpticsBiological systemArtificial intelligencePsychologyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cortical neurons selective for the direction of motion often exhibit some limited response to motion in their nonpreferred directions. Here we examine the dependence of neuronal direction selectivity on stimulus contrast, both for first-order (luminance-modulated, sine-wave grating) and second-order (contrast-modulated envelope) stimuli. We measured responses from single neurons in area 18 of cat visual cortex to both kinds of moving stimuli over a wide range of contrasts (1.25-80%). Direction-selective contrast response functions (CRFs) were calculated as the preferred-minus-null difference in average firing frequency as a function of contrast. We also applied receiver operating characteristic analysis to our CRF data to obtain neurometric functions characterizing the potential ability of each neuron to discriminate motion direction at each contrast level tested. CRFs for sine-wave gratings were usually monotonic; however, a substantial minority of neurons (35%) exhibited nonmonotonic CRFs (such that the degree of direction selectivity decreased with increasing contrast). The underlying preferred and nonpreferred direction CRFs were diverse, often having different shapes in a given neuron. Neurometric functions for direction discrimination showed a similar degree of heterogeneity, including instances of nonmonotonicity. For contrast-modulated stimuli, however, CRFs for either carrier or envelope contrast were always monotonic. In a given neuron, neurometric thresholds were typically much higher for second- than for first-order stimuli. These results demonstrate that the degree of a cell's direction selectivity depends on the contrast at which it is measured, and therefore is not a characteristic parameter of a neuron. In general, contrast response functions for first-order stimuli were very heterogeneous in shape and sensitivity, while those for second-order stimuli showed less sensitivity and were quite stereotyped in shape.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVisual NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207