Reconstructing feedback representations in the ventral visual pathway with a generative adversarial autoencoder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While vision evokes a dense network of feedforward and feedback neural processes in the brain, visual processes are primarily modeled with feedforward hierarchical neural networks, leaving the computational role of feedback processes poorly understood. Here, we developed a generative autoencoder neural network model and adversarially trained it on a categorically diverse data set of images. We hypothesized that the feedback processes in the ventral visual pathway can be represented by reconstruction of the visual information performed by the generative model. We compared representational similarity of the activity patterns in the proposed model with temporal (magnetoencephalography) and spatial (functional magnetic resonance imaging) visual brain responses. The proposed generative model identified two segregated neural dynamics in the visual brain. A temporal hierarchy of processes transforming low level visual information into high level semantics in the feedforward sweep, and a temporally later dynamics of inverse processes reconstructing low level visual information from a high level latent representation in the feedback sweep. Our results append to previous studies on neural feedback processes by presenting a new insight into the algorithmic function and the information carried by the feedback processes in the ventral visual pathway.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".