Recruitment of Foveal Retinotopic Cortex During Haptic Exploration of Shapes and Actions in the Dark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of the early visual cortex and higher-order occipitotemporal cortex has been studied extensively for visual recognition and to a lesser degree for haptic recognition and visually guided actions. Using a slow event-related fMRI experiment, we investigated whether tactile and visual exploration of objects recruit the same “visual” areas (and in the case of visual cortex, the same retinotopic zones) and if these areas show reactivation during delayed actions in the dark toward haptically explored objects (and if so, whether this reactivation might be due to imagery). We examined activation during visual or haptic exploration of objects and action execution (grasping or reaching) separated by an 18 s delay. Twenty-nine human volunteers (13 females) participated in this study. Participants had their eyes open and fixated on a point in the dark. The objects were placed below the fixation point and accordingly visual exploration activated the cuneus, which processes retinotopic locations in the lower visual field. Strikingly, the occipital pole (OP), representing foveal locations, showed higher activation for tactile than visual exploration, although the stimulus was unseen and location in the visual field was peripheral. Moreover, the lateral occipital tactile–visual area (LOtv) showed comparable activation for tactile and visual exploration. Psychophysiological interaction analysis indicated that the OP showed stronger functional connectivity with anterior intraparietal sulcus and LOtv during the haptic than visual exploration of shapes in the dark. After the delay, the cuneus, OP, and LOtv showed reactivation that was independent of the sensory modality used to explore the object. These results show that haptic actions not only activate “visual” areas during object touch, but also that this information appears to be used in guiding grasping actions toward targets after a delay. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Visual presentation of an object activates shape-processing areas and retinotopic locations in early visual areas. Moreover, if the object is grasped in the dark after a delay, these areas show “reactivation.” Here, we show that these areas are also activated and reactivated for haptic object exploration and haptically guided grasping. Touch-related activity occurs not only in the retinotopic location of the visual stimulus, but also at the occipital pole (OP), corresponding to the foveal representation, even though the stimulus was unseen and located peripherally. That is, the same “visual” regions are implicated in both visual and haptic exploration; however, touch also recruits high-acuity central representation within early visual areas during both haptic exploration of objects and subsequent actions toward them. Functional connectivity analysis shows that the OP is more strongly connected with ventral and dorsal stream areas when participants explore an object in the dark than when they view it.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".