Temporal Dynamics of Shape Processing Differentiate Contributions of Dorsal and Ventral Visual Pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although shape perception is primarily considered a function of the ventral visual pathway, previous research has shown that both dorsal and ventral pathways represent shape information. Here, we examine whether the shape-selective electrophysiological signals observed in dorsal cortex are a product of the connectivity to ventral cortex or are independently computed. We conducted multiple EEG studies in which we manipulated the input parameters of the stimuli so as to bias processing to either the dorsal or ventral visual pathway. Participants viewed displays of common objects with shape information parametrically degraded across five levels. We measured shape sensitivity by regressing the amplitude of the evoked signal against the degree of stimulus scrambling. Experiment 1, which included grayscale versions of the stimuli, served as a benchmark establishing the temporal pattern of shape processing during typical object perception. These stimuli evoked broad and sustained patterns of shape sensitivity beginning as early as 50 msec after stimulus onset. In Experiments 2 and 3, we calibrated the stimuli such that visual information was delivered primarily through parvocellular inputs, which mainly project to the ventral pathway, or through koniocellular inputs, which mainly project to the dorsal pathway. In the second and third experiments, shape sensitivity was observed, but in distinct spatio-temporal configurations from each other and from that elicited by grayscale inputs. Of particular interest, in the koniocellular condition, shape selectivity emerged earlier than in the parvocellular condition. These findings support the conclusion of distinct dorsal pathway computations of object shape, independent from the ventral pathway.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".