MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387895910 · doi:10.1101/2023.10.20.563146

Closure in the Visual Cortex: How do we sample?

2023· preprint· en· W4387895910 on OpenAlexaff
Irfa Nisar, James H. Elder

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolygon (computer graphics)IllusionCurvatureLuminanceVisual cortexEccentricity (behavior)Computer scienceArc lengthMathematicsGeometryArtificial intelligenceArc (geometry)PsychologyNeuroscienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does the human visual system sample shapes at discrete points? During adaptation, when the neurons are fatigued, one observes the underlying principles that were once less prominent than the fatigued features. Operating under deficit, these less prominent features expose the original contributions from the fatigued neurons that are now absent. An underlying lower-order neural process is thus, now revealed. In this paper, we conduct experiments using a modified version of the circle-polygon illusion to reveal the brain’s sampling pattern. The circle-polygon illusion produces polygonal percepts during adaptation when a static dark outline circle is pulsed at 2 Hz alternating with a gradient luminance circle. We define sampling as the edge length of the emergent polygon. We develop a reconstruction function that defines the edge length based on psychophysical responses. We perform two experiments. In the first experiment, we present circles of size [2,4,8,16] deg presented at eccentricity [0,1,2,4,8] deg in a cross design. In the second experiment, we modify the method of Sakurai (2014) and display arc lengths that are 1/8, 1/4, 3/8, 1/2, 5/8, 3/4, 7/8 and 1 (whole) of a circle, of size 4 and 8 deg, presented centrally. The observers report the edge length. We find that the stimulus size and presentation eccentricity, taken together, best explain the edge length reported by the users. The users, as a random effect, do not influence the mean of the edge length reported when considering the best model reported (size and eccentricity together). However, the users do influence edge length reported only when using mean eccentricity or eccentricity as the parameter influencing edge length. Arc lengths of a circle produce the same or similar edge lengths. The length of the curve does not play a significant role signifying that biological neurophysiology at an eccentricity controls the edge length formation. Using the influences on edge length, we define sampling as a sum of qualitative influences and a sampling function derived from Taylors polynomial using sampling values along the eccentricity grid. As we use the sampled values directly to reconstruct the function, we remove the need for recording directly from neurons and instead rely on behavioural responses to build the reconstruction function.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→