When we keep our eyes still for a long time, things start to look weird. The brain can blend distinct visual features, like colors, to create perceptual content that is not found in the physical input. How does this illusion (“perceptual filling-in”) happen? [2/6]
Nature Sci Rep publishes incoherent AI slop. eLife publishes a paper which the reviewers didn't agree with, making all the comments and responses public with thoughtful commentary. One of these journals got delisted by Web of Science for quality concerns from not doing peer review. Guess which one?
I tried to do what we call, if I may be so bold, a "conceptual scoop"!!
Pls read my story on the most overlooked form of extreme confinement of farmed animals—the routine caging of millions of dairy calves in tiny crates less than 1/10 the size of a parking spot.
It's not about veal! (🧵)
But once the boundaries are lost, what process determines what we consciously see next? Our data suggest that the brain infers visual uniformity–causing the colors to blend–using cortical areas related to perceptual decision-making and motor control. [5/6]
Max Levinson
It is typically thought that filling-in requires neuronal adaptation. When visual input weakens, we might no longer see boundaries between features. We tested this by measuring visual cortical excitability with rapid invisible frequency tagging (RIFT) in human MEG. [3/6]
These findings support a hierarchical framework in which visual and "motor" systems jointly shape transitions in conscious visual experience. [6/6]
Surprisingly, RIFT (aka excitability) increased! We think that, instead, neuronal *inhibition* decreased. This means visual input may actually remain strong, but circuit-level E/I balance is impaired. Interestingly: involuntary microsaccades delay filling-in by restoring this balance. [4/6]
