What Role Does “Elongation” Play in “Tool-Specific” Activation and Connectivity in the Dorsal and Ventral Visual Streams?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Images of tools induce stronger activation than images of nontools in a left-lateralized network that includes ventral-stream areas implicated in tool identification and dorsal-stream areas implicated in tool manipulation. Importantly, however, graspable tools tend to be elongated rather than stubby, and so the tool-selective responses in some of these areas may, to some extent, reflect sensitivity to elongation rather than "toolness" per se. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we investigated the role of elongation in driving tool-specific activation in the 2 streams and their interconnections. We showed that in some "tool-selective" areas, the coding of toolness and elongation coexisted, but in others, elongation and toolness were coded independently. Psychophysiological interaction analysis revealed that toolness, but not elongation, had a strong modulation of the connectivity between the ventral and dorsal streams. Dynamic causal modeling revealed that viewing tools (either elongated or stubby) increased the connectivity from the ventral- to the dorsal-stream tool-selective areas, but only viewing elongated tools increased the reciprocal connectivity between these areas. Overall, these data disentangle how toolness and elongation affect the activation and connectivity of the tool network and help to resolve recent controversies regarding the relative contribution of "toolness" versus elongation in driving dorsal-stream "tool-selective" areas.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".