MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810439025 · doi:10.3390/vision3020027

Distinguishing Hemodynamics from Function in the Human LGN Using a Temporal Response Model

2019· article· en· W2810439025 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin DeSimone, Keith A. Schneider

Bibliographic record

VenueVision · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParvocellular cellLateral geniculate nucleusPopulationNeuroscienceReceptive fieldComputer sciencePhysicsBiologyVisual cortexNucleusMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We developed a temporal population receptive field model to differentiate the neural and hemodynamic response functions (HRF) in the human lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN). The HRF in the human LGN is dominated by the richly vascularized hilum, a structure that serves as a point of entry for blood vessels entering the LGN and supplying the substrates of central vision. The location of the hilum along the ventral surface of the LGN and the resulting gradient in the amplitude of the HRF across the extent of the LGN have made it difficult to segment the human LGN into its more interesting magnocellular and parvocellular regions that represent two distinct visual processing streams. Here, we show that an intrinsic clustering of the LGN responses to a variety of visual inputs reveals the hilum, and further, that this clustering is dominated by the amplitude of the HRF. We introduced a temporal population receptive field model that includes separate sustained and transient temporal impulse response functions that vary on a much short timescale than the HRF. When we account for the HRF amplitude, we demonstrate that this temporal response model is able to functionally segregate the residual responses according to their temporal properties.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVisionSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207