A TMS Investigation on the Role of Lateral Occipital Complex and Caudal Intraparietal Sulcus in the Perception of Object Form and Orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used TMS to assess the causal roles of the lateral occipital (LO) and caudal intraparietal sulcus (cIPS) areas in the perceptual discrimination of object features. All participants underwent fMRI to localize these areas using a protocol in which they passively viewed images of objects that varied in both form and orientation. fMRI identified six significant brain regions: LO, cIPS, and the fusiform gyrus, bilaterally. In a separate experimental session, we applied TMS to LO or cIPS while the same participants performed match-to-sample form or orientation discrimination tasks. Compared with sham stimulation, TMS to either the left or right LO increased RTs for form but not orientation discrimination, supporting a critical role for LO in form processing for perception- and judgment-based tasks. In contrast, we did not observe any effects when we applied TMS to cIPS. Thus, despite the clear functional evidence of engagement for both LO and cIPS during the passive viewing of objects in the fMRI experiment, the TMS experiment revealed that cIPS is not critical for making perceptual judgments about their form or 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".