MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395026830 · doi:10.1038/srep20232

Semantic and emotional content of imagined representations in human occipitotemporal cortex

2016· article· en· W2395026830 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel J. Mitchell, Rhodri Cusack

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)PerceptionMental imageCognitive psychologyAuditory imageryPsychologyVisual cortexCognitionSensory systemTemporal cortexComputer scienceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental imagery is a critical cognitive function, clinically important, but poorly understood. When visual objects are perceived, many of their sensory, semantic and emotional properties are represented in occipitotemporal cortex. Visual imagery has been found to activate some of the same brain regions, but it was not known what properties are re-created in these regions during imagery. We therefore examined the representation during imagery for two stimuli in depth, by comparing the pattern of fMRI response to the patterns evoked by the perception of 200 diverse objects chosen to de-correlate their properties. Real-time, adaptive stimulus selection allowed efficient sampling of this broad stimulus space. Our experiments show that occipitotemporal cortex, which encoded sensory, semantic and emotional properties during perception, can robustly represent semantic and emotional properties during imagery, but that these representations depend on the object being imagined and on individual differences in style and reported vividness of imagery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207