Transsaccadic feature interactions in multiple reference frames: an fMRIa study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Transsaccadic integration of visual features can operate in various frames of reference, but the corresponding neural mechanisms have not been differentiated. A recent fMRIa (adaptation) study identified two cortical regions in supramarginal gyrus (SMG) and extrastriate cortex that were sensitive to transsaccadic changes in stimulus orientation (Dunkley et al., 2016). Here, we modified this paradigm to identify the neural correlates for transsaccadic comparison of object orientations in: 1) Spatially Congruent (SC), 2) Retinally Congruent (RC) or 3) Spatially Incongruent (SI)) coordinates. Functional data were recorded from 12 human participants while they observed a grating (oriented 45° or 135°) before a saccade, and then judged whether a post-saccadic grating (in SC, RC, or SI configuration) had the same or different orientation. Our analysis focused on areas that showed a significant repetition suppression (Different > Same) or repetition enhancement (Same > Different) BOLD responses. Several cortical areas were significantly modulated in all three conditions: premotor/motor cortex (likely related to the manual response), and posterior-middle intraparietal sulcus. In the SC condition, uniquely activated areas included left SMG and left lateral occipitotemporal gyrus (LOtG). In the RC condition, unique areas included inferior frontal gyrus and the left lateral BA 7. In the SI condition, uniquely activated areas included the frontal eye field, medial BA 7, and right LOtG. Overall, the SC results were significantly different from both RC and SI. These data suggest that different cortical networks are used to compare pre- and post-saccadic orientation information, depending on the spatial nature of the task. Significance Statement Every time one makes a saccade, the brain must compare and integrate stored visual information with new information. It has recently been shown that ‘transsaccadic integration’ of visual object orientation involves specific areas within parietal and occipital cortex (Dunkley et al., 2016). Here, we show that this pattern of cortical activation also depends on the spatial nature of the task: when the visual object is fixed relative to space, the eye, or relative to neither space nor the eye, different frontal, parietal, and occipital regions are engaged. More generally, these findings suggest that different aspects of trans-saccadic integration flexibly employ different cortical networks.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".