Modulation of olfactory processing by visual cortex stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to view the world in a unified manner, information from the different senses must combine at some point in the sensory stream. This is known as perceptual binding and has led to the study of how various senses interact, termed multisensory integration. An intriguing example of a crossmodal interaction is the finding from various imaging studies that primary visual cortex is activated while subjects performed purely olfactory tasks. This is in line with the literature documenting a connection between vision and olfaction, but whether visual cortical activity and olfactory perception are connected causally is unknown. In this thesis I will investigate the connection between vision and olfaction using Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). TMS is a non-invasive method of stimulating cortex via magnetic induction. The present research involved the application of TMS to early visual cortex, including V1, bilaterally in the context of experiments that test both visual and olfactory perception. In particular subjects were tested on a visual task (contrast detection) and two olfactory tasks that probe the ability to discriminate odor intensity and quality. Behavioral experiments were carried out before and after the application of either no TMS, real TMS to V1, sham TMS to V1 (replicates experimental conditions of real TMS but no current is produced in the cortex) and real TMS to primary auditory cortex. The results have revealed a significant improvement in performance on the visual task, replicating previous data. Interestingly, improvements in the ability of subjects to discriminate among odor qualities following TMS of V1 were also found, with a tendency for female subjects to show more improvement than their male counterparts. Similar improvements were not found in the ability to discriminate among odor intensities or on either olfactory task in any of the control conditions (no TMS or sham TMS or auditory cortex TMS). Implications and limitations of the present results are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".