MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588318632 · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01104

Regulating the Access to Awareness: Brain Activity Related to Probe-related and Spontaneous Reversals in Binocular Rivalry

2017· article· en· W2588318632 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Metzger, Kyle E. Mathewson, Evelina Tapia, Monica Fabiani, Gabriele Gratton, Diane M. Beck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsBinocular rivalryPsychologyRivalryBinocular visionCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceVisual perceptionPerceptionOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) has implicated an assortment of brain regions, ERP components, and network properties associated with visual awareness. Recently, the P3b ERP component has emerged as a leading NCC candidate. However, typical P3b paradigms depend on the detection of some stimulus change, making it difficult to separate brain processes elicited by the stimulus itself from those associated with updates or changes in visual awareness. Here we used binocular rivalry to ask whether the P3b is associated with changes in awareness even in the absence of changes in the object of awareness. We recorded ERPs during a probe-mediated binocular rivalry paradigm in which brief probes were presented over the image in either the suppressed or dominant eye to determine whether the elicited P3b activity is probe or reversal related. We found that the timing of P3b (but not its amplitude) was closely related to the timing of the report of a perceptual change rather than to the onset of the probe. This is consistent with the proposal that P3b indexes updates in conscious awareness, rather than being related to stimulus processing per se. Conversely, the probe-related P1 amplitude (but not its latency) was associated with reversal latency, suggesting that the degree to which the probe is processed increases the likelihood of a fast perceptual reversal. Finally, the response-locked P3b amplitude (but not its latency) was associated with the duration of an intermediate stage between reversals in which parts of both percepts coexist (piecemeal period). Together, the data suggest that the P3b reflects an update in consciousness and that the intensity of that process (as indexed by P3b amplitude) predicts how immediate that update is.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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