MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901031299 · doi:10.1167/18.12.6

Magnetoencephalography adaptation reveals depth-cue-invariant object representations in the visual cortex

2018· article· en· W2901031299 on OpenAlexafffund
Hassan Akhavein, Armita Dehmoobadsharifabadi, Reza Farivar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsMagnetoencephalographyVisual cortexInvariant (physics)Adaptation (eye)PsychologyComputer scienceComputer visionArtificial intelligenceNeuroscienceCommunicationCognitive psychologyMathematicsElectroencephalography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Independent of edges and 2-D shape that can be highly informative of object identity, depth cues alone can also give rise to vivid and effective object percepts. The processing of different depth cues engages segregated cortical areas, and an efficient object representation would be one that is invariant to depth cues. Here, we investigated depth-cue invariance of object representations by measuring the category-specific response to faces-the M170 response measured with magnetoencephalography. The M170 response is strongest to faces and is sensitive to adaptation, such that repeated presentation of a face diminishes subsequent M170 responses. We used this feature of the M170 and measured the degree to which the adaptation effect is affected by variations in depth cue and 3-D object shape. Subjects viewed a rapid presentation of two stimuli-an adaptor and a test stimulus. The adaptor was either a face, a chair, or a face-like oval surface, and rendered with a single depth cue (shading, structure from motion, or texture). The test stimulus was always a shaded face of a random identity, thus completely controlling for low-level influences on the M170 response to the test stimulus. In the left fusiform face area, we found strong M170 adaptation when the adaptor was a face regardless of its depth cue. This adaptation was marginal in the right fusiform and negligible in the occipital regions. Our results support the presence of depth-cue-invariant representations in the human visual system, alongside size, position, and viewpoint invariance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.973
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.311 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207