MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109267567 · doi:10.1101/2020.12.01.407437

Retinotopic organization of visual cortex in human infants

2020· preprint· en· W3109267567 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Cameron T. Ellis, Tristan S. Yates, Lena J. Skalaban, Vikranth R. Bejjanki, Michael J. Arcaro, Nicholas B. Turk‐Browne

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchFaculty of Arts and SciencesPrinceton UniversityYale University
KeywordsVisual cortexExtrastriate cortexReceptive fieldCortex (anatomy)NeuroscienceRetinotopyPerceptionVisual systemVisual perceptionPsychologyCartographyBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Vision develops rapidly during infancy, yet how visual cortex is organized during this period is unclear. One possibility is that the retinotopic organization of visual cortex emerges gradually as perceptual abilities improve. This may result in a hierarchical maturation of visual areas from striate to extrastriate cortex. Another possibility is that retinotopic organization is present from early infancy. This early maturation of area boundaries and tuning could scaffold further developmental changes. Here we test the functional maturity of infant visual cortex by performing retinotopic mapping with fMRI. Infants aged 5–23 months had retinotopic maps, with alternating preferences for vertical and horizontal meridians indicative of area boundaries from V1 to V4, and an orthogonal gradient of preferences from high to low spatial frequencies indicative of growing receptive field sizes. Although present in the youngest infants, these retinotopic maps showed subtle agerelated changes, suggesting that early maturation undergoes continued refinement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207