Assessing lateral interactions within the early visual areas of adults with autism.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Although atypical performance on visuo-spatial tasks targeting early, non-social perception is a defining characteristic of autism, few biologically plausible hypotheses are available to explain them. Some authors have theorized that persons with autism may have atypical local connectivity resulting in altered response properties of early visual feature detectors. The goal of this study is to use steady-state visual evoked potentials (ssVEPs) to measure and define local neural activity originating from lateral interactions between neurons within early visual areas elicited by windmill-dartboard stimuli (Zemon & Ratcliff, 1982). Methods. Eight participants with autism and 9 typically developing participants, matched for full-scale IQ and age (18-30 years), were asked to passively view the windmill-dartboard stimuli while ssVEPs from four electrodes over the occipital cortex (Oz, POz, O1 and O2) were collected. Windmill-dartboard stimuli consisted of a radial pattern comprised of concentric contrast reversing zones with contiguous static zones. EEGs were analyzed using a Fast Fourier Transform. First- and second-harmonic components of the steady-state responses were used to calculate indices reflecting facilitatory (FI) and inhibitory (SI) cortical interactions, which were compared between groups. Results. Preliminary results demonstrate that there are no group-differences for either FI or SI cortical interactions. Conclusions. To date, our results suggest that cortical lateral connections within early visual brain areas whether defined by facilitatory (FI) and inhibitory (SI) indices, are similar in autism and control participants. However, given the small sample size, we have yet to draw a strong conclusion from the results; data collection (and analysis) is ongoing. In a complimentary study, we are also presently analyzing ssVEP data collected for the same group of participants while viewing low-contrast Gabor patches presented ether in isolation (target), or flanked by collinear/orthogonal Gabors at different contrasts (8, 16, 30%) at target-flanker distances (1.5λ, 3 λ, 6 λ). Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2013
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 | 0.001 | 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".