MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Perception and Memory in the Ventral Visual Stream and Medial Temporal Lobe

2023· review· en· W4366137438 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Vision Science · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemporal lobePerceptionCognitive psychologyVision for perception and vision for actionPsychologyCognitionVisual memorySemantic memoryVisual perceptionEpisodic memoryNeuroscienceCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Perception and memory are traditionally thought of as separate cognitive functions, supported by distinct brain regions. The canonical perspective is that perceptual processing of visual information is supported by the ventral visual stream, whereas long-term declarative memory is supported by the medial temporal lobe. However, this modular framework cannot account for the increasingly large body of evidence that reveals a role for early visual areas in long-term recognition memory and a role for medial temporal lobe structures in high-level perceptual processing. In this article, we review relevant research conducted in humans, nonhuman primates, and rodents. We conclude that the evidence is largely inconsistent with theoretical proposals that draw sharp functional boundaries between perceptual and memory systems in the brain. Instead, the weight of the empirical findings is best captured by a representational-hierarchical model that emphasizes differences in content, rather than in cognitive processes within the ventral visual stream and medial temporal lobe.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.346 · 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