ArticleArXiv2026
Eccentricity-Constrained CNN Training Reveals Adaptive Information Coding Around the Visual Field.
Article in ArXiv, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Within topographic eccentricity maps in the primate visual system, center-preferring populations have higher spatial resolution and overlap face- and word-selective regions while periphery-preferring populations have lower spatial resolution and overlap scene-selective regions. Prior behavioral and neuroimaging evidence suggests that this "eccentricity bias" may reflect the relevance of visual field portions for different tasks: the central visual field may be more informative for fine-grained tasks like face recognition and reading, while the periphery may be more informative for large-scale scene understanding tasks. To examine whether such eccentricity-dependent coding can emerge from natural experience, we leveraged egocentric video and eye-tracking data from the Visual Experience Dataset (VEDB). We trained ResNet-18 models using contrastive learning (SimCLR) on video frames modified to isolate information available at different eccentricities (gaze-contingent fovea-only crops, periphery-only crops, and periphery-only crops with a NeuroFovea transform applied). We then evaluated downstream task performance and model alignment with human fMRI data (Natural Scenes Dataset; encoding model framework). When examining in-domain classification of VEDB frame categories, we observed systematic variability in the performance of fovea-only and periphery-only models across categories, suggesting differential informativeness of visual field eccentricities across tasks. On downstream classification without fine-tuning, VEDB-pretrained models generalized more strongly to scene recognition (Places365) than to face recognition (VGGFace2), with fovea-only models showing an advantage on both tasks. Across visual cortex, VEDB-pretrained models achieved similar neural predictivity to models trained on mid-sized non-egocentric datasets (ImageNet-100), suggesting experience-sampled egocentric data, despite its low diversity and constrained semantic content, supports emergence of cortically-aligned representations. In scene-selective sub-regions (PPA, RSC), periphery-only models held a small but consistent advantage in explained variance over fovea-only models, suggesting scene-selective cortex may be adapted to peripheral-field statistics. Together, these results suggest that naturalistic egocentric experience provides an organizing constraint on perception, leading to adaptive, task-aligned information processing.
Identifiers
42539066PMC13419636What 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.