Position selectivity in face‐sensitive visual cortex to facial and nonfacial stimuli: an <scp>fMRI</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence for position sensitivity in object-selective visual areas has been building. On one hand, most of the relevant studies have utilized stimuli for which the areas are optimally selective and examine small sections of cortex. On the other hand, visual field maps established with nonspecific stimuli have been found in increasingly large areas of visual cortex, though generally not in areas primarily responsive to faces. METHODS: fMRI was used to study the position sensitivity of the occipital face area (OFA) and the fusiform face area (FFA) to both standard rotating wedge retinotopic mapping stimuli and quadrant presentations of synthetic facial stimuli. Analysis methods utilized were both typical, that is, mean univariate BOLD signals and multivoxel pattern analysis (MVPA), and novel, that is, distribution of voxels to pattern classifiers and use of responses to nonfacial retinotopic mapping stimuli to classify responses to facial stimuli. RESULTS: Polar angle sensitivity was exhibited to standard retinotopic mapping stimuli with a stronger contralateral bias in OFA than in FFA, a stronger bias toward the vertical meridian in FFA than in OFA, and a bias across both areas toward the inferior visual field. Contralateral hemispheric lateralization of both areas was again shown using synthetic face stimuli based on univariate BOLD signals, MVPA, and the biased contribution of voxels toward multivariate classifiers discriminating the contralateral visual field. Classifiers based on polar angle responsivity were used to classify the patterns of activation above chance levels to face stimuli in the OFA but not in the FFA. CONCLUSIONS: Both the OFA and FFA exhibit quadrant sensitivity to face stimuli, though the OFA exhibits greater position responsivity across stimuli than the FFA and includes overlap in the response pattern to the disparate stimulus types. Such biases are consistent with varying position sensitivity along different surfaces of occipito-temporal cortex.
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".