MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004513657 · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-14610-8

Genetic influence is linked to cortical morphology in category-selective areas of visual cortex

2020· article· en· W3004513657 on OpenAlexaff
Nooshin Abbasi, John S. Duncan, Reza Rajimehr

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersMedical Research CouncilInstitute for Research in Fundamental SciencesCambridge TrustChongqing Science and Technology Commission
KeywordsVoxelVisual cortexCortex (anatomy)Twin studyNeurosciencePosterior parietal cortexBiologyEvolutionary biologyDissociation (chemistry)PsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceChemistryHeritability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human visual cortex contains discrete areas that respond selectively to specific object categories such as faces, bodies, and places. A long-standing question is whether these areas are shaped by genetic or environmental factors. To address this question, here we analyzed functional MRI data from an unprecedented number (n = 424) of monozygotic (MZ) and dizygotic (DZ) twins. Category-selective maps were more identical in MZ than DZ twins. Within each category-selective area, distinct subregions showed significant genetic influence. Structural MRI analysis revealed that the 'genetic voxels' were predominantly located in regions with higher cortical curvature (gyral crowns in face areas and sulcal fundi in place areas). Moreover, we found that cortex was thicker and more myelinated in genetic voxels of face areas, while it was thinner and less myelinated in genetic voxels of place areas. This double dissociation suggests a differential development of face and place areas in cerebral cortex.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207