Callosal Sensitivity to Short- Range Stimulus Orientation and Long- Range Stimulus Context Orientation: Tachistoscopic Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To study local-global relationships in interhemispheric interactions, tachistoscopically presented pairs of lines (1.15 degrees) were compared for their relative orientation by 48 neurotypical adults. Orientations of line stimuli (local aspect of the task) were vertical, horizontal, forward slash or backslash, as were those of the interstimulus axes. The latter created a global context that could influence line discrimination. Stimulus pairs were presented within a field (not requiring callosal participation for line orientation comparison) or one on each side of the visual field meridian (requiring callosal participation). The primary purpose of the design was to determine whether local or global violations of stimulus "homotopy" across the meridian would impose costs of interhemispheric integration. The rationale for this expectation is that the fiber projection of the corpus callosum is highly symmetric across the midsagittal plane (i.e., homotopic). The expected "callosal homotopy" effect was significantly upheld as a whole but broke down or became extravagant in certain specific conditions, with specific costs of interhemispheric integration varying from null to a highly significant 20-ms as a function of interactions of interstimulus and stimulus orientations. The corpus callosum seems to be particularly sensitive to local stimulus orientation in interaction with long-range stimulus context orientation.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".