Neurophysiological basis of contrast dependent BOLD orientation tuning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent work in early visual cortex of humans has shown that the BOLD signal exhibits contrast dependent orientation tuning, with an inverse oblique effect (oblique > cardinal) at high contrast and a horizontal effect (vertical > horizontal) at low contrast. This finding is at odds with decades of neurophysiological research demonstrating contrast invariant orientation tuning in primate visual cortex, yet the source of this discrepancy is unclear. We hypothesized that contrast dependent BOLD orientation tuning may arise due to contrast dependent influences of feedforward (FF) and feedback (FB) synaptic activity, indexed through gamma and alpha rhythms, respectively. To quantify this, we acquired EEG and BOLD in healthy humans to generate and compare orientation tuning curves across all neural frequency bands with BOLD. As expected, BOLD orientation selectivity in V1 was contrast dependent, preferring oblique orientations at high contrast and vertical at low contrast. On the other hand, EEG orientation tuning was contrast invariant, though frequency-specific, with an inverse-oblique effect in the gamma band (FF) and a horizontal effect in the alpha band (FB). Therefore, high-contrast BOLD orientation tuning closely matched FF activity, while at low contrast, BOLD best resembled FB orientation tuning. These results suggest that contrast dependent BOLD orientation tuning arises due to the reduced contribution of FF input to overall neurophysiological activity at low contrast, shifting BOLD orientation tuning towards the orientation preferences of FB at low contrast.
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".