MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2023· review· en· W4366137438 on OpenAlexaff
Chris B. Martin, Morgan D. Barense

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.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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

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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations44
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Vision ScienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207