Computational evidence for a rivalry hierarchy in vision
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cortical-form vision comprises multiple, hierarchically arranged areas with feedforward and feedback interconnections. This complex architecture poses difficulties for attempts to link perceptual phenomena to activity at a particular level of the system. This difficulty has been especially salient in studies of binocular rivalry alternations, where there is seemingly conflicting evidence for a locus in primary visual cortex or alternatively in higher cortical areas devoted to object perception. Here, I use a competitive neural model to demonstrate that the data require at least two hierarchic rivalry stages for their explanation. This model demonstrates that competitive inhibition in the first rivalry stage can be eliminated by using suitable stimulus dynamics, thereby revealing properties of a later stage, a result obtained with both spike-rate and conductance-based model neurons. This result provides a synthesis of competing rivalry theories and suggests that neural competition may be a general characteristic throughout the form-vision hierarchy.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it