MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402905629 · doi:10.1167/jov.24.10.928

Neural responses in space and time to a massive set of natural scenes

2024· article· en· W4402905629 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Brotherwood, Emmanuel Lebeau, Mathias Salvas-Hébert, Marin Coignard, Shahab Bakhtiari, Frédéric Gosselin, Kendrick Kay, Ian Charest

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Space (punctuation)Computer scienceSpacetimeArtificial intelligenceGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding how neurons in the visual system support visual perception requires deep sampling of neural responses across a wide array of visual stimuli. Part of this challenge has been met by a recent large-scale 7T fMRI dataset, termed the Natural Scenes Dataset (NSD). This dataset provides extensive high-resolution spatial sampling of brain activity in eight observers while they view complex natural scenes. Here, we present the NSD-EEG, a large-scale electroencephalography (EEG) dataset that provides detailed characterisation of brain activity from a temporal perspective, thereby completing the characterisation of visual processing in the human brain. For this dataset, we optimised data quality by choosing 8 participants from a larger pool based on empirical signal-to-noise metrics and by using a high-density (164 channels) EEG system within a shielded Faraday cage. NSD images were shown for a duration of 250 ms, followed by a variable interstimulus interval of 750-1000 ms. Each participant viewed 10000 images 10 times, with a subset of 1000 images (common across participants) repeated 30 times. Preliminary analyses reveal remarkably consistent event-related potentials (ERPs) for each stimulus, with high inter-trial reliability even at a rapid one stimulus per second pace (max Pearson R: 0.8, p<0.001). Additionally, split-half representational dissimilarity matrices exhibit strong reliability (max Spearman R: 0.4, p<0.001), further affirming the robustness of our data. We plan to publicly release the NSD-EEG dataset in the near future, alongside an exhaustive battery of complementary behavioural and psychophysical data. In combination with the NSD dataset, this will enable a comprehensive examination of neural responses in space and time to complex natural scenes. Altogether, this will support the ongoing movement using machine learning, artificial intelligence, and other computational methods to characterise and understand the neural mechanisms of vision.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.336 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vision→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→