The large-scale organization of shape processing in the ventral and dorsal pathways is dissociable from attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The two visual pathways model posits that visual information is processed through two distinct cortical systems: The ventral pathway promotes visual recognition, while the dorsal pathway supports visuomotor control. Recent evidence suggests the dorsal pathway is also involved in shape processing and may contribute to object perception, but it remains unclear whether this sensitivity is independent of attentional mechanisms that were localized to overlapping cortical regions. To address this question, we conducted two fMRI experiments that utilized different parametric scrambling manipulations in which human participants viewed novel objects in different levels of scrambling and were instructed to attend to either the object or to another aspect of the image (e.g. color of the background). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that the large-scale organization of shape selectivity along the dorsal and ventral pathways was preserved regardless of the focus of attention. Attention did modulate shape sensitivity, but these effects were similar across the two pathways. These findings support the idea that shape processing is at least partially dissociable from attentional processes and relies on a distributed set of cortical regions across the visual pathways.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".