MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Phase-Dependent Interactions in Visual Cortex to Combinations of First- and Second-Order Stimuli

2016· article· en· W2533544331 on OpenAlexafffund
Claire V. Hutchinson, Timothy Ledgeway, Curtis L. Baker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLuminanceVisual cortexNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)PsychologyFacilitationSurround suppressionVisual perceptionCommunicationPhysicsPerceptionOpticsCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fundamental task of the visual system is to extract figure-ground boundaries between objects, which are often defined, not only by differences in luminance, but also by "second-order" contrast or texture differences. Responses of cortical neurons to both first- and second-order patterns have been studied extensively, but only for responses to either type of stimulus in isolation. Here, we examined responses of visual cortex neurons to the spatial relationship between superimposed periodic luminance modulation (LM) and contrast modulation (CM) stimuli, the contrasts of which were adjusted to give equated responses when presented alone. Extracellular single-unit recordings were made in area 18 of the cat, the neurons of which show responses to CM and LM stimuli very similar to those in primate area V2 (Li et al., 2014). Most neurons showed a significant dependence on the relative phase of the combined LM and CM patterns, with a clear overall optimal response when they were approximately phase aligned. The degree of this phase preference, and the contributions of suppressive and/or facilitatory interactions, varied considerably from one neuron to another. Such phase-dependent and phase-invariant responses were evident in both simple- and complex-type cells. These results place important constraints on any future model of the underlying neural circuitry for second-order responses. The diversity in the degree of phase dependence between LM and CM stimuli that we observed could help to disambiguate different kinds of boundaries in natural scenes. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Many visual cortex neurons exhibit orientation-selective responses to boundaries defined by differences either in luminance or in texture contrast. Previous studies have examined responses to either type of boundary in isolation, but here we measured systematically responses of cortical neurons to the spatial relationship between superimposed periodic luminance-modulated (LM) and contrast-modulated (CM) stimuli with contrasts adjusted to give equated responses. We demonstrate that neuronal responses to these compound stimuli are highly dependent on the relative phase between the LM and CM components. Diversity in the degree of such phase dependence could help to disambiguate different kinds of boundaries in natural scenes, for example, those arising from surface reflectance changes or from illumination gradients such as shading or shadows.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207