Disentangling presentation and processing times in the brain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual object recognition seems to occur almost instantaneously. However, not only does it require hundreds of milliseconds of processing, but our eyes also typically fixate the object for hundreds of milliseconds. Consequently, information reaching our eyes at different moments is processed in the brain together. Moreover, information received at different moments during fixation is likely to be processed differently, notably because different features might be selectively attended at different moments. Here, we introduce a novel reverse correlation paradigm that allows us to uncover with millisecond precision the processing time course of specific information received on the retina at specific moments. Using faces as stimuli, we observed that processing at several electrodes and latencies was different depending on the moment at which information was received. Some of these variations were caused by a disruption occurring 160-200 ms after the face onset, suggesting a role of the N170 ERP component in gating information processing; others hinted at temporal compression and integration mechanisms. Importantly, the observed differences were not explained by simple adaptation or repetition priming, they were modulated by the task, and they were correlated with differences in behavior. These results suggest that top-down routines of information sampling are applied to the continuous visual input, even within a single eye fixation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".