ArticleeNeuro
Differential Involvement of EEG Oscillatory Components in Sameness versus Spatial-Relation Visual Reasoning Tasks.
Article in eNeuro. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- GAMR: A Guided Attention Model for (visual) Reasoning.... International Conference on Learning Representations · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The development of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) has recently led to great successes in computer vision, and CNNs have become de facto computational models of vision. However, a growing body of work suggests that they exhibit critical limitations on tasks beyond image categorization. Here, we study one such fundamental limitation, concerning the judgment of whether two simultaneously presented items are the same or different (SD) compared with a baseline assessment of their spatial relationship (SR). In both human subjects and artificial neural networks, we test the prediction that SD tasks recruit additional cortical mechanisms which underlie critical aspects of visual cognition that are not explained by current computational models. We thus recorded electroencephalography (EEG) signals from human participants engaged in the same tasks as the computational models. Importantly, in humans the two tasks were matched in terms of difficulty by an adaptive psychometric procedure; yet, on top of a modulation of evoked potentials (EPs), our results revealed higher activity in the low β (16-24 Hz) band in the SD compared with the SR conditions. We surmise that these oscillations reflect the crucial involvement of additional mechanisms, such as working memory and attention, which are missing in current feed-forward CNNs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.