MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198347370 · doi:10.1167/jov.21.9.2787

Different responses of the scene-selective cortical regions to magnocellular- and parvocellular-biased visual information

2021· article· en· W3198347370 on OpenAlexaff
Hee Yeon Im, Yoonjung Lee, Soojin Park

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFace Recognition and Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParvocellular cellCategorizationPsychologyAchromatic lensContrast (vision)LuminanceRetrosplenial cortexPerceptionVisual perceptionVisual cortexNeuroscienceCrossmodalVisual systemCognitive psychologyCommunicationComputer visionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCortex (anatomy)PhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scene perception relies on a set of cortical regions, such as the parahippocampal place area (PPA), retrosplenial complex (RSC), and occipital place area (OPA), exhibiting dissociable functional selectivity to various scene properties. Debates are ongoing about what specific types of visual information are represented in these regions to mediate their different functions. This fMRI study examined the neural bases of functional dissociations of scene-selective regions by selectively biasing visual inputs from the magnocellular (M) and parvocellular (P) cells and comparing patterns of their cortical projections. We manipulated 96 scene images to create stimuli that biased M- (low-contrast, achromatic images defined by luminance) or P- (defined by iso-luminant, red-green contrast) responses, adjusted for each participant’s thresholds. Twenty-four participants performed indoor/outdoor categorization of M- or P-stimuli presented for 1 second. Participants were significantly faster at categorizing P-biased scenes than M-biased, interestingly contrasted to the M-advantages reported in fearful/neutral face categorization (Cushing et al., 2019). For fMRI data analyses, each participant’s PPA, RSC, and OPA were functionally defined using a separate localizer scan. The PPA was significantly more responsive to P-stimuli in general, whereas the RSC showed greater responses to M-stimuli with a slight preference for outdoor images. The OPA activations did not show systematic M/P bias. We next tested whether the PPA and RSC preferences for P- and M-stimuli, respectively, were specific to the task of scene processing. In separate fMRI runs, participants viewed rapid flashes of an achromatic, low-spatial-frequency grating (M-biased) or slow alterations of a red-green, high-spatial-frequency grating (P-biased). Although the M-bias became weaker in the RSC, the P-bias of the PPA remained robust for the scene-irrelevant gratings. Our findings together demonstrate differential processing biases of the scene-selective regions for visual attributes conveyed from the retina to the cortex, facilitating the efficient perception of complementary scene properties.

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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicFace Recognition and PerceptionFrench-language works237,207