fMRI representational similarity analysis reveals graded preferences for chromatic and achromatic stimulus contrast across human visual cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human visual cortex is partitioned into different functional areas that, from lower to higher, become increasingly selective and responsive to complex feature dimensions. Here we use a Representational Similarity Analysis (RSA) of fMRI-BOLD signals to make quantitative comparisons across LGN and multiple visual areas of the low-level stimulus information encoded in the patterns of voxel responses. Our stimulus set was picked to target the four functionally distinct subcortical channels that input visual cortex from the LGN: two achromatic sinewave stimuli that favor the responses of the high-temporal magnocellular and high-spatial parvocellular pathways, respectively, and two chromatic stimuli isolating the L/M-cone opponent and S-cone opponent pathways, respectively. Each stimulus type had three spatial extents to sample both foveal and para-central visual field. With the RSA, we compare quantitatively the response specializations for individual stimuli and combinations of stimuli in each area and how these change across visual cortex. First, our results replicate the known response preferences for motion/flicker in the dorsal visual areas. In addition, we identify two distinct gradients along the ventral visual stream. In the early visual areas (V1-V3), the strongest differential representation is for the achromatic high spatial frequency stimuli, suitable for form vision, and a very weak differentiation of chromatic versus achromatic contrast. Emerging in ventral occipital areas (V4, VO1 and VO2), however, is an increasingly strong separation of the responses to chromatic versus achromatic contrast and a decline in the high spatial frequency representation. These gradients provide new insight into how visual information is transformed across the visual 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 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".