MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388373562 · doi:10.1101/2023.11.03.565500

The feature landscape of visual cortex

2023· preprint· en· W4388373562 on OpenAlexafffund
Rudi Tong, Ronan da Silva, Dongyan Lin, Arna Ghosh, James Wilsenach, Erica Cianfarano, Pouya Bashivan, Blake A. Richards, Stuart Trenholm

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOffice of Naval ResearchCompute CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchNvidia
KeywordsVisual cortexENCODEFeature (linguistics)NeuroscienceVisual perceptionComputer scienceCortical neuronsPerceptionPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Understanding computations in the visual system requires a characterization of the distinct feature preferences of neurons in different visual cortical areas. However, we know little about how feature preferences of neurons within a given area relate to that area’s role within the global organization of visual cortex. To address this, we recorded from thousands of neurons across six visual cortical areas in mouse and leveraged generative AI methods combined with closed-loop neuronal recordings to identify each neuron’s visual feature preference. First, we discovered that the mouse’s visual system is globally organized to encode features in a manner invariant to the types of image transformations induced by self-motion. Second, we found differences in the visual feature preferences of each area and that these differences generalized across animals. Finally, we observed that a given area’s collection of preferred stimuli (‘own-stimuli’) drive neurons from the same area more effectively through their dynamic range compared to preferred stimuli from other areas (‘other-stimuli’). As a result, feature preferences of neurons within an area are organized to maximally encode differences among own-stimuli while remaining insensitive to differences among other-stimuli. These results reveal how visual areas work together to efficiently encode information about the external world.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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