The feature landscape of visual cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".