Neurophysiological Correlates of Visual Performance Effects of Luminous Modulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The present study investigated the effects of luminous modulation or flicker on concurrently recorded visual event-related potentials (ERPs) to performance and accuracy in a Stroop and sentence reading tasks.Methods: Three flicker rates were presented at 0, 100, and 500 Hz in separate blocks of trials while ERPs were recorded and participants performed a Stroop and sentence reading task.Results: Although the sentence reading and Stroop task did not support the main hypothesis that 100 Hz would adversely affect reading and reaction times, respectively, the source analysis revealed that the 500 Hz response had approximately the same mean source activation for incongruent and congruent tasks which was not the case for 100 Hz where the incongruent task resulted in significantly higher activation for the early latencies (i.e.60-100 ms, 170-210 ms) in the left hemisphere and in the 170-210 ms range in the right hemisphere.The overall activation localized to the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus.Conclusions: Source analysis results suggest that 500 Hz flicker had an effect on the secondary visual pathway as evidenced by localization of the pulvinar.Furthermore, source activation for 500 Hz was not significantly different for congruent and incongruent trials whereas 100 Hz resulted in higher average brain activation between these trials in the Stroop task suggesting that more effort was required to complete this task.The amount of time under each lighting condition was, by all standards, minimal --only about 15 minutes.Yet, even with iii this short exposure, we found data suggestive of important influences of flicker on performance and brain outcomes, particularly in the left hemisphere.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".