Selectivity of human retinotopic visual cortex to S‐cone‐opponent, L/M‐cone‐opponent and achromatic stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our aim was to make a quantitative comparison of the response of the different visual cortical areas to selective stimulation of the two different cone-opponent pathways [long- and medium-wavelength (L/M)- and short-wavelength (S)-cone-opponent] and the achromatic pathway under equivalent conditions. The appropriate stimulus-contrast metric for the comparison of colour and achromatic sensitivity is unknown, however, and so a secondary aim was to investigate whether equivalent fMRI responses of each cortical area are predicted by stimulus contrast matched in multiples of detection threshold that approximately equates for visibility, or direct (cone) contrast matches in which psychophysical sensitivity is uncorrected. We found that the fMRI response across the two colour and achromatic pathways is not well predicted by threshold-scaled stimuli (perceptual visibility) but is better predicted by cone contrast, particularly for area V1. Our results show that the early visual areas (V1, V2, V3, VP and hV4) all have robust responses to colour. No area showed an overall colour preference, however, until anterior to V4 where we found a ventral occipital region that has a significant preference for chromatic stimuli, indicating a functional distinction from earlier areas. We found that all of these areas have a surprisingly strong response to S-cone stimuli, at least as great as the L/M response, suggesting a relative enhancement of the S-cone cortical signal. We also identified two areas (V3A and hMT+) with a significant preference for achromatic over chromatic stimuli, indicating a functional grouping into a dorsal pathway with a strong magnocellular input.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".