Motion-defined contour processing in the early visual cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From our daily experience, it is very clear that relative motion cues can contribute to correctly identifying object boundaries and perceiving depth. Motion-defined contours are not only generated by the motion of objects in a scene but also by the movement of an observer's head and body (motion parallax). However, the neural mechanism involved in detecting these contours is still unknown. To explore this mechanism, we extracellularly recorded visual responses of area 18 neurons in anesthetized and paralyzed cats. The goal of this study was to determine if motion-defined contours could be detected by neurons that have been previously shown to detect luminance-, texture-, and contrast-defined contours cue invariantly. Motion-defined contour stimuli were generated by modulating the velocity of high spatial frequency sinusoidal luminance gratings (carrier gratings) by a moving squarewave envelope. The carrier gratings were outside the luminance passband of a neuron, such that presence of the carrier alone within the receptive field did not elicit a response. Most neurons that responded to contrast-defined contours also responded to motion-defined contours. The orientation and direction selectivity of these neurons for motion-defined contours was similar to that of luminance gratings. A given neuron also exhibited similar selectivity for the spatial frequency of the carrier gratings of contrast- and motion-defined contours. These results suggest that different second-order contours are detected in a form-cue invariant manner, through a common neural mechanism in area 18.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".