Effective Size of Receptive Fields of Inferior Temporal Visual Cortex Neurons in Natural Scenes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inferior temporal cortex (IT) neurons have large receptive fields when a single effective object stimulus is shown against a blank background, but have much smaller receptive fields when the object is placed in a natural scene. Thus, translation invariant object recognition is reduced in natural scenes, and this may help object selection. We describe a model which accounts for this by competition within an attractor in which the neurons are tuned to different objects in the scene, and the fovea has a higher cortical magnification factor than the peripheral visual field. Furthermore, we show that top-down object bias can increase the receptive field size, facilitating object search in complex visual scenes, and providing a model of object-based attention. The model leads to the prediction that introduction of a second object into a scene with blank background will reduce the receptive field size to values that depend on the closeness of the second object to the target stimulus. We suggest that mechanisms of this type enable the output of IT to be primarily about one object, so that the areas that receive from IT can select the object as a potential target for action.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".