Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 97 references

Direct observation of the crossed interhemispheric transfer of the left-right mirror-images in human vision

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Monocular afterimages reveal a crossed callosal route for mirror-images in human vision

desk verdict A striking single-observer afterimage observation, but the leap from eye-of-origin percepts to crossed callosal layer-4 projections is not earned. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08703 v1 pith:EK4E73UX submitted 2025-07-11 physics.bio-ph

Albert Le Floch , Guy Ropars This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords mirror-imageconfusionnoise-activatedafterimagescorpuscallosumoculardominancecolumnslayer4ofV1dyslexiaMaxwellcentroidasymmetryinterhemispherictransfer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports a perceptual experiment that claims to locate the brain pathway for left–right mirror-image reversal in human vision. Using a young adult with dyslexia who perceives mirror-images, the authors extend their noise-activated afterimage method to monocular fixation: after fixating a letter like b with one eye, the primary afterimage is seen only through that eye, while the mirror afterimage d is seen only through the other eye, which stayed closed. From this they deduce that the mirror transfer travels through the corpus callosum onto the ocular dominance columns of layer 4 of primary visual cortex, the only layer where the two eyes' inputs remain strictly segregated, and that these callosal projections are crossed between the two eyes' columns. The finding matters because it would settle a long-standing debate over whether mirror-images are perceptual or merely memorial, and it would explain both childhood mirror confusion and its persistence in dyslexia, while suggesting a way to weaken the disturbing mirror-images with pulsed light.

What carries the argument

Central to the argument is the noise-activated afterimage method. After a high-contrast pattern is fixated, photoreceptors under the bright parts are bleached and become nearly insensitive to noise, while unbleached photoreceptors remain highly sensitive; diffuse light through a closed eyelid supplies zero-mean Gaussian noise, so the pattern appears as a negative afterimage that can be read out eye by eye by alternately uncovering each eyelid. The anatomical locus that carries the inference is layer 4 of V1, whose ocular dominance columns keep the two eyes' signals strictly segregated; according to the paper this is the only layer where such strict segregation exists, so the eye-specific readout can be used to trace the callosal projection and show that it is crossed.

What would settle it

A person whose corpus callosum has been completely cut should, after monocular fixation, see the primary afterimage in the fixating eye but no mirror afterimage in the closed eye; if the mirror afterimage still appears, the crossed callosal route is not required.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim that the callosal interhemispheric connections that carry symmetric mirror-images are projected onto the ocular dominance columns of layer 4 of primary visual cortex (V1), the only layer where the inputs from the two eyes are strictly segregated, and that these projections are crossed between the columns of the two eyes. The evidence is a monocular noise-activation experiment: after a letter is fixated with one eye and the eyelids are closed, the primary afterimage appears alone when noise is admitted through the fixating eye, and the mirror afterimage appears alone when noise is admitted through the eye that remained closed. Because the mirror image is perceived only through the non-fixating eye, the authors conclude that the mirror signal has been delivered to that eye's own layer-4 ocular dominance columns, and because the transfer takes about 10 ms, the primary and mirror afterimages are both spatially and temporally resolved.

Load-bearing premise

The deduction rests on the assumption that seeing the mirror afterimage only through the closed eye proves the signal physically reached that eye's own segregated column of cells in the primary visual cortex, rather than arising from a later memory reversal or the observer's expectations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Mirror images are perceptual signals at the primary visual cortex, not merely memory traces, because they can be re-activated by retinal noise entering the closed eye.
  • The symmetric interhemispheric transfer runs crossed between the ocular dominance columns of the two eyes in layer 4 of V1, so the non-fixating eye alone receives the mirror afterimage after a monocular fixation.
  • Primary and mirror images are both spatially and temporally separated, with the mirror delayed by the roughly 10 ms callosal transit, so pulsed 80 Hz lighting can erase the disturbing mirror image via Hebbian plasticity.
  • In typical adults, the crossed projection transfers the asymmetry between the two retinas' Maxwell centroids to cortex, weakening and eventually suppressing mirror images by the end of the critical period; in dyslexics lacking the retinal asymmetry, mirror images persist and produce internal visual crowding.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method could be turned into a dichoptic test: if the mirror image really lives in the closed eye's layer-4 columns, then adding noise only to that eye should modulate the mirror afterimage's visibility without affecting the primary afterimage in the fixating eye.
  • A natural replication is to run the monocular readout in several more observers with mirror-images; the same opposite-eye separation should appear in every such observer, while the degree of suppression in typical readers should track the measured asymmetry of their Maxwell centroids.
  • The claimed roughly 10 ms callosal delay predicts that the 80 Hz pulsed-light erasure should be tunable by phase: shifting the pulse timing should change how completely the mirror image is suppressed, giving a psychophysical handle on individual callosal conduction speed.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports noise-activated afterimage observations in a single 18-year-old dyslexic observer (CT). After binocular fixation, CT reportedly perceives both the primary and mirror-image of letters, bigrams, words, and non-words; after monocular fixation, the primary afterimage is seen through the fixating eye and the mirror-image is reportedly seen exclusively through the non-fixating (closed) eye. From this eye-selective perception, the authors deduce that callosal interhemispheric projections are crossed and terminate on ocular dominance columns in layer 4 of V1, the layer they identify as the only one with strict eye segregation. They further report that 80 Hz pulsed lighting removes the mirror-image, which they attribute to Hebbian erasure.

Significance. If the central deduction were valid, the paper would provide a striking and specific anatomical claim about human V1 callosal connectivity, with potential implications for the development of reading and for dyslexia remediation. The paper has some strengths: it extends a previously described afterimage method to monocular fixation and documents a striking perceptual phenomenon in a single observer; the observations are described with commendable clarity, and the authors include attempted control observations in two typical readers. However, the manuscript contains no machine-checked or quantitative analyses, no statistical treatment, and no neuroimaging or other direct physiological measure. The key inference from perceptual eye-of-origin reports to layer-4 ocular dominance columns is supported only by assertion, not by evidence. The paper is better characterized as a hypothesis-generating single-case demonstration than as a demonstration of the claimed cortical architecture. The significance of the raw observation, if replicated under controlled conditions, could warrant a more cautious report, but the present central claim is not established.

major comments (5)
  1. [II-4, Fig. 5; Discussion] The central deduction is underdetermined. The observation that a mirror-image afterimage is perceived through the non-fixating eye does not entail that the signal was physically delivered to that eye's layer-4 ocular dominance columns. Eye-of-origin perception can be influenced by higher-level interhemispheric transfer, by memory-based reversal, or by response bias, and the protocol includes no control condition to exclude these alternatives. The modal claim 'we are forced to conclude' (Discussion, p. 19) overstates the logical force of the data. To support the layer-4 callosal crossing claim, the authors would need either direct physiological evidence (e.g., fMRI with ocular dominance column resolution, which is at the edge of current technology) or at least a psychophysical design that rules out top-down attribution.
  2. [II-2, Eq. (3), Fig. 3] The proposed noise-activation mechanism requires differential photopigment bleaching to create a spatial pattern: in Eq. (3) and Fig. 3, unbleached photoreceptors respond to noise while bleached ones do not. In the monocular fixation condition, the non-fixating eye was closed and never exposed to the stimulus, so its photoreceptors are uniformly unbleached; diffuse light transmitted through the eyelid is spatially homogeneous. The manuscript does not explain how a resolved, patterned mirror-image could arise in that eye from noise alone, nor why the representation must reside in layer 4 of V1 rather than in extrastriate or higher cortical areas. The 'noise activation' mechanism, as written, generates a pattern only if a differential bleach pattern already exists, which is not the case for the closed eye.
  3. [IV-1, Methods; all Results] The evidence rests on a single observer (CT) with no replication, no blind or forced-choice procedures, and no statistical analysis. The two typical observers in Supplementary S2 and S3 are described as controls, but they are not reported as naive to the hypothesis, no matched comparison is provided, and their role cannot exclude expectation effects in CT. Single-case demonstrations can be valuable, but they cannot bear the weight of a novel microanatomical claim about the human corpus callosum.
  4. [III, Discussion] The claim that layer 4 is 'the only layer with strict segregation' and 'does not receive any feedback' is an oversimplification of current knowledge: eye-selective signals persist beyond V1, and feedback projections can influence layer 4 through disynaptic routes. More importantly, the argument that perceptual eye attribution maps one-to-one onto layer-4 ocular dominance columns is not justified. The authors should either soften the conclusion to a hypothesis or provide direct laminar evidence.
  5. [II-5, Fig. 10] The claim that a single session of binocular fixation under 80 Hz pulsed lighting 'erases' the mirror-image via Hebbian mechanisms is not supported by the data reported. No quantitative measure, time course, or replication is given; the text reports a single impression ('CT observed that the annoying extra mirror-image disappears'). As this is the basis for the proposed therapeutic application, it requires at least a controlled psychophysical assessment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [All figures] The figures are schematic reconstructions of the observer's reports, not raw recordings; this should be stated explicitly in each caption to avoid the impression that these are photographic images.
  2. [II-1, Fig. 1b] The notation 'Δε = ε_R − ε_L' is introduced with odd typography; use standard mathematical notation and define ellipticity.
  3. [Eq. (3)] The variable x is defined in the text as membrane voltage, but t and ξ(t) should be explicitly defined; the 'effective noise' factor k introduced in the Methods should appear in the equation or in a clearly connected text.
  4. [III, Discussion] Duplicated phrase 'induces necessarily induces' should be corrected to 'necessarily induces'.
  5. [IV-1, Methods] The diagnostic criteria for dyslexia in CT are not given; state which assessment was used.
  6. [Abstract and Conclusion] The word 'deduce' makes a logical claim that is not supported; consider replacing with 'hypothesize' or 'infer provisionally'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity by construction; the layer-4 deduction is underdetermined but not derived from its inputs.

full rationale

The paper's chain is: after a monocular fixation, the primary afterimage is reported through the fixating eye and the mirror image through the eye that remained closed; because layer 4 is said to be the only layer with strict ocular segregation, the authors conclude that the callosal projections are crossed between layer-4 ocular dominance columns. This is an empirical inference rather than a circular reduction: no parameter is fitted to the central observation, no equation rewrites the conclusion as an input, and the afterimage percept is not defined as 'activation of that eye's layer-4 columns' anywhere in the text. The noise-activation mechanism in eqs. (1)-(3) describes how unbleached versus bleached photoreceptors respond to eyelid noise, but it does not by itself impose the layer-4 localization. The self-citations to the authors' prior work (refs. 17, 19) supply the noise-activated afterimage method, the Maxwell-centroid asymmetry account, and the 80 Hz manipulation, but this paper re-measures CT's Maxwell centroids, explains the method in its own Methods section, and tests two normal observers. The 'layer 4 is the only strictly segregated layer' premise is cited to independent anatomical literature (Hubel and Wiesel, Crick, Kennedy et al.), not to the authors' own uniqueness theorem. The strongest concern is underdetermination: eye-of-origin afterimage reports do not uniquely force a layer-4 callosal-crossing interpretation, and the closed eye's uniformly unbleached retina makes a photoreceptor-noise origin of the spatial mirror pattern questionable. That is an evidential or correctness objection, not circularity by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several domain assumptions imported from prior literature, especially the segregation of eye inputs in layer 4, the 10 ms callosal delay, and the mapping from subjective eye-of-perception to layer-4 columnar activation. No new physical entity is introduced. One hand-chosen factor, k, models differential bleaching; the model coefficients in Equations 1 and 2 are not numerically fitted.

free parameters (1)
  • Effective noise factor k = k ≈ 1 for unbleached photoreceptors; k ≈ 0.5 for bleached photoreceptors
    Introduced in the Methods to model differential bleaching during noise activation. The values are chosen by the authors, not measured in this study, and the afterimage interpretation depends on the contrast between these assumed values.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Layer 4 of V1 is the only cortical layer with strict segregation of signals from the two eyes.
    Used in the Introduction and Discussion to conclude that mirror-image transfer must occur in layer 4. The anatomical fact is cited from Hubel and others, but its application to the afterimage percept is an extrapolation.
  • domain assumption Perceiving an afterimage through a given eye implies activation of that eye's ocular dominance columns in layer 4.
    This is the logical bridge in the Discussion: because the mirror-image is seen through the closed eye, the authors conclude it was projected onto that eye's columns. This mapping is not tested.
  • domain assumption Interhemispheric visual transfer is symmetric, point-to-point, and crossed between the ocular dominance columns.
    The paper assumes the existence and symmetry of interhemispheric mirror connections from references 4, 20, and 25, then adds the crossed topology as the interpretation of Fig. 5.
  • domain assumption Noise transmitted through the closed eyelid is sufficient to activate unbleached photoreceptors and generate afterimages.
    The entire method relies on this assumption. Illuminance is measured, but the neural activation is inferred, not recorded.
  • domain assumption The callosal transfer delay is about 10 ms.
    Imported from Caminiti et al. and used to justify temporal resolution and the 80 Hz pulsed-light suppression.
  • domain assumption The lack of asymmetry between Maxwell centroids causes persistence of mirror-images in dyslexia.
    Imported from the authors' prior work, reference 17, to frame CT as a suitable observer; not re-established in this study.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Direct observation of the crossed interhemispheric transfer of the left-right mirror-images in human vision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EK4E73UX

@misc{pith2026250708703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Direct observation of the crossed interhemispheric transfer of the left-right mirror-images in human vision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EK4E73UX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08703}
}
read the original abstract

Symmetry breaking is common in animal and human brains where the lack of asymmetry often perturbs behavioral and cognitive functions. In particular, the ubiquity of mirror-image confusion in young children, which often persists in dyslexia, is established. However, the very existence of these symmetric mirror-images and their perceptual or memory nature remain controversial. Here, using the noise-activated afterimage method, we demonstrate that a dyslexic with mirror-images is an ideal candidate for solving the mystery. Indeed, after a monocular fixation, the primary afterimages are perceived alone through this eye, while the mirror-images are also perceived alone, but exclusively through the other eye which has remained closed. We deduce that the callosal interhemispheric connections are necessarily projected on the dominance columns of layer 4 of the primary cortex, the only layer where segregation is strict, and are furthermore crossed. Our results show that perceived primary and mirror images are spatially and temporally resolved.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08703 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. The asymmetric potential of a neuron membrane. a) Scheme of the asymmetrical potential representing the electrochemical potential U(x) of the neural membrane (solid line). The straight green line represents the ionic driving force. The activation signal (in purple) induces the action potential. b) Typical membrane voltage with its two stable and unstable states during an action potential (A and B respectively) [PIT… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Bigram noise-activated afterimages observed by CT. a) The stimulus with the fixation point (red star). b) Observed noise-activated afterimages after a binocular fixation: superposition of the primary and mirror images. c) Noise-activated afterimages after a monocular left-eye fixation. The reversals occur for each letter and for their order through the right eye. d) Similar results after a right-eye fixation [PITH_… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Analysis of Sensations, and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical

    Mach, E. The Analysis of Sensations, and the Relation of the Physical to the Psychical. (Franklin Classics, 2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Gross, C. G. & Bornstein, M. H. Left and Right in Science and Art. Leonardo 11, 29 (1978)

    1978

  3. [3]

    The current status of the magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia

    Stein, J. The current status of the magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia. Neuropsychologia 130, 66–77 (2019)

    2019

  4. [4]

    Corballis, M. C. Mirror-Image Equivalence and Interhemispheric Mirror-Image Reversal. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 12, (2018)

    2018

  5. [5]

    Mello, N. K. Inter-hemispheric Comparison of Visual Stimuli in the Pigeon. Nature 214, 144– 145 (1967)

    1967

  6. [6]

    Mirror-Images and the Forebrain Commissures of the Monkey

    Noble, J. Mirror-Images and the Forebrain Commissures of the Monkey. Nature 211, 1263– 1266 (1966)

    1966

  7. [7]

    Paradoxical interocular transfer of mirror-image discriminations in the optic chiasm sectioned monkey

    Noble, J. Paradoxical interocular transfer of mirror-image discriminations in the optic chiasm sectioned monkey. Brain Res. 10, 127–151 (1968)

    1968

  8. [8]

    Rollenhagen, J. E. & Olson, C. R. Mirror-image confusion in single neurons of the macaque inferotemporal cortex. Science 287, 1506–1508 (2000)

    2000

Show all 97 references
  1. [9]

    Linneweber, G. A. et al. A neurodevelopmental origin of behavioral individuality in the Drosophila visual system. Science 367, 1112–1119 (2020)

    2020

  2. [10]

    Hubel, D. H. Exploration of the primary visual cortex, 1955–78. Nature 515–524 (1982)

    1982

  3. [11]

    Gazzaniga, M. S. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain 123, 1293–1326 (2000)

    2000

  4. [12]

    Hubel, D. H. Eye, Brain, and Vision. (Scientific American Library, 1988)

    1988

  5. [13]

    Pavlov, I. P. Conditioned Reflexes. (Dover Publications Inc., 2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    Corballis, M. C. & Beale, I. L. The Psychology of Left and Right. (Routledge, 2020)

    2020

  7. [15]

    Orton, S. T. ‘Word-blindness’ in school children. Arch. Neurol. Psychiatry 14, 581–615 (1925)

    1925

  8. [16]

    Orton, S. T. & Masland, R. L. Reading, Writing, and Speech Problems in Children and Selected Papers. (The International Dyslexia Association, 1999)

    1999

  9. [17]

    & Ropars, G

    Le Floch, A. & Ropars, G. Left-right asymmetry of the Maxwell spot centroids in adults without and with dyslexia. Proc. Biol. Sci. 284, 20171380 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    Cornell, J. M. Spontaneous mirror-writing in children. Can. J. Psychol. 39, 174–179 (1985). 28

    1985

  11. [19]

    & Ropars, G

    Le Floch, A. & Ropars, G. Le manque d’asymétrie des centroïdes de Maxwell, et de dominance oculaire, chez les dyslexiques. Rev. Francoph. Orthopt. 13, 134–138 (2020), and the English translation: The lack of asymmetry of the Maxwell centroids, and of ocular dominance, in perso...

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Olavarria, J. F. & Hiroi, R. Retinal influences specify cortico-cortical maps by postnatal day six in rats and mice. J. Comp. Neurol. 459, 156–172 (2003)

    2003

  13. [21]

    & Bullier, J

    Kennedy, H., Dehay, C. & Bullier, J. Organization of the callosal connections of visual areas v1 and v2 in the macaque monkey. J. Comp. Neurol. 247, 398–415 (1986)

    1986

  14. [22]

    Hubel, D. H. & Wiesel, T. N. Ferrier lecture - Functional architecture of macaque monkey visual cortex. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 198, 1–59 (1997)

    1997

  15. [23]

    C., Steven, M

    Putnam, M. C., Steven, M. S., Doron, K. W., Riggall, A. C. & Gazzaniga, M. S. Cortical Projection Topography of the Human Splenium: Hemispheric Asymmetry and Individual Differences. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 22, 1662–1669 (2010)

    2010

  16. [24]

    Hodge, R. D. et al. Conserved cell types with divergent features in human versus mouse cortex. Nature 573, 61–68 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    Houzel, J.-C., Carvalho, M. L. & Lent, R. Interhemispheric connections between primary visual areas: Beyond the midline rule. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 35, 1441–1453 (2002)

    2002

  18. [26]

    Wiesel, T. N. Postnatal development of the visual cortex and the influence of environment. Nature 299, 583–591 (1982)

    1982

  19. [27]

    Adams, D. L. & Horton, J. C. Ocular Dominance Columns: Enigmas and Challenges. The Neuroscientist 15, 62–77 (2009)

    2009

  20. [28]

    Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul

    Crick, F. Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. (Scribner, 1995)

    1995

  21. [29]

    & Montiel, J

    Aboitiz, F., López, J. & Montiel, J. Long distance communication in the human brain: timing constraints for inter-hemispheric synchrony and the origin of brain lateralization. Biol. Res. 36, 89–99 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Caminiti, R. et al. Diameter, Length, Speed, and Conduction Delay of Callosal Axons in Macaque Monkeys and Humans: Comparing Data from Histology and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Diffusion Tractography. J. Neurosci. 33, 14501–14511 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Hebb, D. O. The organization of behavior; a neuropsychological theory. (Wiley, 1949)

    1949

  24. [32]

    Gomez, J. et al. Microstructural proliferation in human cortex is coupled with the development of face processing. Science 355, 68–71 (2017)

    2017

  25. [33]

    E., Hendrickson, A

    Cornish, E. E., Hendrickson, A. E. & Provis, J. M. Distribution of short-wavelength-sensitive cones in human fetal and postnatal retina: early development of spatial order and density profiles. Vision Res. 44, 2019–2026 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    Blue-blindness in the normal fovea

    Wald, G. Blue-blindness in the normal fovea. J. Opt. Soc. Am. 57, 1289–1301 (1967). 29

    1967

  27. [35]

    A., Sloan, K

    Curcio, C. A., Sloan, K. R., Kalina, R. E. & Hendrickson, A. E. Human photoreceptor topography. J. Comp. Neurol. 292, 497–523 (1990)

    1990

  28. [36]

    & Ropars, G

    Le Floch, A. & Ropars, G. The structure of the Maxwell spot centroid. Asian Journal of Physics 32 (3-4), 173–183 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Maxwell, J. C. On the unequal sensibility of the foramen centrale to light of different colours. Athenaeum 1093 (1856)

  30. [38]

    & Cang, J

    Wang, B.-S., Sarnaik, R. & Cang, J. Critical Period Plasticity Matches Binocular Orientation Preference in the Visual Cortex. Neuron 65, 246–256 (2010)

    2010

  31. [39]

    Dellatolas, G. & et al. Eye Dominance in Children: A Longitudinal Study. Behav. Genet. 28, 187–195 (1998)

    1998

  32. [40]

    Polyak, S. L. The retina: the anatomy and the histology of the retina in man, ape, and monkey, including the consideration of visual functions, the history of physiological optics, and the histological laboratory technique. (Chicago, 1941)

    1941

  33. [41]

    & Moss, F

    Wiesenfeld, K. & Moss, F. Stochastic resonance and the benefits of noise: from ice ages to crayfish and SQUIDs. Nature 373, 33–36 (1995)

    1995

  34. [42]

    Koester, J. D. & Bean, B. P. Ion channels. in Principle of Neural Science, Sixth Edition (Kandel E.R., Koester J.D., Mack S.H., Siegelbaum S.A., 2021)

    2021

  35. [43]

    Koester, J. D. & Siegelbaum, S. A. Membrane potential and the passive electrical properties of the neuron. in Principle of neural Science, Sixth Edition (Kandel E.R., Koester J.D., Mack S.H., Siegelbaum S.A., 2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    P., Ropars, G., Brunel, M

    Singh, K. P., Ropars, G., Brunel, M. & Le Floch, A. Lever-Assisted Two-Noise Stochastic Resonance. Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 073901 (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    Rodieck, R. W. The first steps in seeing. xi, 562 (Sinauer Associates, 1998)

    1998

  38. [46]

    & Moss, F

    Longtin, A., Bulsara, A., Pierson, D. & Moss, F. Bistability and the dynamics of periodically forced sensory neurons. Biol. Cybern. 70, 569–578 (1994)

    1994

  39. [47]

    & Kripke, D

    Ando, K. & Kripke, D. F. Light attenuation by the human eyelid. Biol. Psychiatry 39, 22–25 (1996)

    1996

  40. [48]

    & Mahroo, O

    Jiang, X. & Mahroo, O. A. Human retinal dark adaptation tracked in vivo with the electroretinogram: insights into processes underlying recovery of cone- and rod-mediated vision. J. Physiol. 600, 4603–4621 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Reversals: A Personal Account of Victory over Dyslexia

    Simpson, E. Reversals: A Personal Account of Victory over Dyslexia. (The Noonday Press, 1998)

    1998

  42. [50]

    & Caleo, M

    Pietrasanta, M., Restani, L. & Caleo, M. The corpus callosum and the visual cortex: plasticity is a game for two. Neural Plast. 2012, 838672 (2012). 30

    2012

  43. [51]

    F., Zecevic, N

    Rakic, P., Bourgeois, J.-P., Eckenhoff, M. F., Zecevic, N. & Goldman-Rakic, P. S. Concurrent Overproduction of Synapses in Diverse Regions of the Primate Cerebral Cortex. Science 232, 232–235 (1986)

    1986

  44. [52]

    Favuzzi, E. et al. GABA-receptive microglia selectively sculpt developing inhibitory circuits. Cell 184, 4048-4063.e32 (2021)

    2021

  45. [53]

    Jorstad, N. L. et al. Transcriptomic cytoarchitecture reveals principles of human neocortex organization. Science 382, eadf6812 (2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    J., Roth, M

    Keller, A. J., Roth, M. M. & Scanziani, M. Feedback generates a second receptive field in neurons of the visual cortex. Nature 582, 545–549 (2020)

    2020

  47. [55]

    Debes, S. R. & Dragoi, V. Suppressing feedback signals to visual cortex abolishes attentional modulation. Science 379, 468–473 (2023)

    2023

  48. [56]

    & Dumoulin, S

    Fracasso, A., Petridou, N. & Dumoulin, S. O. Systematic variation of population receptive field properties across cortical depth in human visual cortex. NeuroImage 139, 427–438 (2016)

    2016

  49. [57]

    Tootell, R. B. H. & et al. Deoxyglucose Analysis of Retinotopic Organization in Primate Striate Cortex. Science 218, 902–904 (1982)

    1982

  50. [58]

    & Fitzpatrick, D

    Blasdel, G. & Fitzpatrick, D. Physiological organization of layer 4 in macaque striate cortex. J. Neurosci. 4, (1984)

    1984

  51. [59]

    D., Feller, M

    Huberman, A. D., Feller, M. B. & Chapman, B. Mechanisms underlying development of visual maps and receptive fields. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 31, 479–509 (2008)

    2008

  52. [60]

    Scala, F. et al. Layer 4 of mouse neocortex differs in cell types and circuit organization between sensory areas. Nat. Commun. 10, 4174 (2019)

    2019

  53. [61]

    Cheng, S. et al. Vision-dependent specification of cell types and function in the developing cortex. Cell 185, 311-327.e24 (2022)

    2022

  54. [62]

    Levi, D. M. Crowding—An essential bottleneck for object recognition: A mini-review. Vision Res. 48, 635–654 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    Pelli, D. G. Crowding: a cortical constraint on object recognition. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 18, 445–451 (2008)

    2008

  56. [64]

    Bertoni, S. & et al. Is excessive visual crowding causally linked to developmental dyslexia? Neuropsychologia 130, 107–117 (2019)

    2019

  57. [65]

    Henry, C. A. & Kohn, A. Spatial contextual effects in primary visual cortex limit feature representation under crowding. Nat. Commun. 11, 1687 (2020)

    2020

  58. [66]

    H., Gross, C

    Bornstein, M. H., Gross, C. G. & Wolf, J. Z. Perceptual similarity of mirror images in infancy. Cognition 6, 89–116 (1978)

    1978

  59. [67]

    Cornell, J. M. Spontaneous mirror-writing in children. Can. J. Psychol. Rev. Can. Psychol. 39, 174–179 (1985). 31

    1985

  60. [68]

    Hensch, T. K. & Quinlan, E. M. Critical periods in amblyopia. Vis. Neurosci. 35, E014 (2018)

    2018

  61. [69]

    Ranade, S. S. et al. Piezo2 is the major transducer of mechanical forces for touch sensation in mice. Nature 516, 121–125 (2014)

    2014

  62. [70]

    & Imamizu, H

    Itakura, S. & Imamizu, H. An Exploratory Study of Mirror-Image Shape Discrimination in Young Children: Vision and Touch. Percept. Mot. Skills 78, 83–88 (1994)

    1994

  63. [71]

    & Gentaz, E

    Congedo, M., Lécuyer, A. & Gentaz, E. The Influence of Spatial Delocation on Perceptual Integration of Vision and Touch. Presence 15, 353–357 (2006)

    2006

  64. [72]

    Anderson, P. W. More Is Different: Broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science. Science 177, 393–396 (1972)

    1972

  65. [73]

    & Coren, S

    Porac, C. & Coren, S. The dominant eye. Psychol. Bull. 83, 880–897 (1976)

    1976

  66. [74]

    & Macdonald, B

    Sergent, J., Ohta, S. & Macdonald, B. Functional neuroanatomy of face and object processing: a positron emission tomography study. Brain 115, 15–36 (1992)

    1992

  67. [75]

    Blackburne, L. K. et al. Neural Correlates of Letter Reversal in Children and Adults. PLOS ONE 9, e98386 (2014)

    2014

  68. [76]

    P., Sharma, S., Lemieux, S

    Conner, I. P., Sharma, S., Lemieux, S. K. & Mendola, J. D. Retinotopic organization in children measured with fMRI. J. Vis. 4, 10 (2004)

    2004

  69. [77]

    Olulade, O. A. et al. The neural basis of language development: Changes in lateralization over age. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 117, 23477–23483 (2020)

    2020

  70. [78]

    Sowell, E. R. et al. Mapping cortical change across the human life span. Nat. Neurosci. 6, 309– 315 (2003)

    2003

  71. [79]

    L., Hong Liu, C

    Ellemberg, D., Lewis, T. L., Hong Liu, C. & Maurer, D. Development of spatial and temporal vision during childhood. Vision Res. 39, 2325–2333 (1999)

    1999

  72. [80]

    & Grill-Spector, K

    Gomez, J., Natu, V., Jeska, B., Barnett, M. & Grill-Spector, K. Development differentially sculpts receptive fields across early and high-level human visual cortex. Nat. Commun. 9, 788 (2018)

    2018

  73. [81]

    Rosen, G. D. et al. Disruption of Neuronal Migration by RNAi of Dyx1c1 Results in Neocortical and Hippocampal Malformations. Cereb. Cortex 17, 2562–2572 (2007)

    2007

  74. [82]

    B., Burbridge, T

    Ackman, J. B., Burbridge, T. J. & Crair, M. C. Retinal waves coordinate patterned activity throughout the developing visual system. Nature 490, 219–225 (2012)

    2012

  75. [83]

    Guillamón-Vivancos, T. et al. Input-dependent segregation of visual and somatosensory circuits in the mouse superior colliculus. Science 377, 845–850 (2022)

    2022

  76. [84]

    & Ohki, K

    Murakami, T., Matsui, T., Uemura, M. & Ohki, K. Modular strategy for development of the hierarchical visual network in mice. Nature 608, 578–585 (2022)

    2022

  77. [85]

    Bajar, B. T. et al. A discrete neuronal population coordinates brain-wide developmental activity. Nature 602, 639–646 (2022). 32

    2022

  78. [86]

    Ribot, J. et al. Astrocytes close the mouse critical period for visual plasticity. Science 373, 77– 81 (2021)

    2021

  79. [87]

    A., Sancar, F

    Gottfried, J. A., Sancar, F. & Chatterjee, A. Acquired mirror writing and reading: evidence for reflected graphemic representations. Neuropsychologia 41, 96–107 (2003)

    2003

  80. [88]

    R., Corbetta, M

    Karolis, V. R., Corbetta, M. & Thiebaut de Schotten, M. The architecture of functional lateralisation and its relationship to callosal connectivity in the human brain. Nat. Commun. 10, 1417 (2019)

    2019

  81. [89]

    & Walsh, V

    Stein, J. & Walsh, V. To see but not to read; the magnocellular theory of dyslexia. Trends Neurosci. 20, 147–152 (1997)

    1997

  82. [90]

    & Livingstone, M

    Galaburda, A. & Livingstone, M. Evidence for a Magnocellular Defect in Developmental Dyslexia. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 682, 70–82 (1993)

    1993

  83. [91]

    Field, G. D. et al. Functional connectivity in the retina at the resolution of photoreceptors. Nature 467, 673–677 (2010)

    2010

  84. [92]

    Finn, E. S. et al. Disruption of Functional Networks in Dyslexia: A Whole-Brain, Data-Driven Analysis of Connectivity. Biol. Psychiatry 76, 397–404 (2014)

    2014

  85. [93]

    Cossell, L. et al. Functional organization of excitatory synaptic strength in primary visual cortex. Nature 518, 399–403 (2015)

    2015

  86. [94]

    & Alonso, J

    Kremkow, J., Jin, J., Wang, Y. & Alonso, J. M. Principles underlying sensory map topography in primary visual cortex. Nature 533, 52–57 (2016)

    2016

  87. [95]

    Gotts, S. J. et al. Two distinct forms of functional lateralization in the human brain. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, E3435–E3444 (2013)

    2013

  88. [96]

    Labache, L., Ge, T., Yeo, B. T. T. & Holmes, A. J. Language network lateralization is reflected throughout the macroscale functional organization of cortex. Nat. Commun. 14, 3405 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    Walls, G. L. & Mathews, R. W. New means of studying color blindness and normal foveal color vision, with some results and their genetical implications. Publ. Psychol. 7, 1–172 (1952). 33 Acknowledgments We thank the University of Rennes for access to its facilities, and J. R. ...

    1952

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.