MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412462583 · doi:10.1167/jov.25.9.2714

Motion-Induced Object Position Adaptation in Macaque IT Cortex: Temporal Processing Limitations of Neural Networks

2025· article· en· W4412462583 on OpenAlexaff
Elizaveta Yakubovskaya, Hamidreza Ramezanpour, Kohitij Kar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacaqueAdaptation (eye)Computer scienceObject (grammar)NeuroscienceMotion (physics)Artificial intelligenceArtificial neural networkComputer visionPosition (finance)Temporal cortexNeural adaptationCommunicationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have demonstrated that the macaque inferior temporal (IT) cortex, a key area in the ventral visual pathway, supports not only object identification but also object position estimation—a function previously attributed to dorsal-stream mechanisms. In parallel, artificial neural networks (ANNs) optimized for object recognition replicate this positional decoding capability. Such findings invite an intriguing question: If these ventral-stream-aligned ANNs can recapitulate positional coding, can they also exhibit systematic positional biases induced by adaptation to motion, analogous to the well-known human aftereffects? We tested this by simulating adaptation in ANNs through the exponential decay of model features (Vinken et al., 2020). Using "brain-mapped" ANN architectures—feedforward convolutional networks (AlexNet, VGG), networks with skip connections (ResNet), and transformer-based models (ViT)—pre-trained on ImageNet, we analyzed responses from their most "IT cortex-like" layers to naturalistic test images. While these ANNs robustly decoded object positions under static conditions, none exhibited motion-adaptation-induced positional shifts. In contrast, when we presented motion-adapting rightward or leftward moving grating stimuli (3000 ms) to two passively fixating macaques and recorded large-scale IT responses to succeeding test images (40 images containing 1 of 8 objects, with varying latent parameters embedded in naturalistic backgrounds), the resulting position decodes from IT population activity showed directionally specific biases matching human perceptual aftereffects. These results suggest that the neural mechanisms in IT supporting adaptive shifts in perceived object position are not fully captured by current ANN models. Therefore, we hypothesized that additional history-dependent, nonlinear transformations might explain these dynamic adaptation effects. Testing a state-of-the-art dynamic video recognition model (SlowFast with ResNet-50 backbone) showed that even this more temporally sophisticated model failed to reproduce adaptation-induced positional aftereffects. Our results reveal a key gap: while current ANNs can decode position, they lack the temporal processing needed to replicate the adaptive positional biases in the macaque ventral stream.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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