search

elifesciences / enhanced-preprints-import

Enhanced Preprints import system
1 stars 0 forks source link

MSID: 96217 Version: 1 DOI: 10.1101/2022.02.08.479654 #3853

Closed nlisgo closed 5 months ago

nlisgo commented 7 months ago

MSID: 96217

Version: 1

Preprint DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.08.479654

Step 1. Awaiting reviews

Editorial to post reviews via hypothesis

Useful links:

For trouble shooting (e.g. no Docmaps available):

Step 2. Preview reviewed preprint

Production QC content ahead of publication

Instructions:

Useful links:

Step 3: Awaiting search reindex

This step adds the reviewed preprint to the homepage: https://elifesciences.org

The search reindex is triggered once an hour. We need the reviewed preprint to be indexed as the search application serves the journal homepage.

Useful links:

Step 4: Published! PDF requested

Waiting for PDF to be generated

Useful links:

Step 5: Introduce PDF to data folder and git repo

Upload PDF to relevent folder in git repo https://github.com/elifesciences/enhanced-preprints-data/

Step 6: Done!

fred-atherden commented 6 months ago

error: This journal reference (id c18) has no article-title element. error: Ref with id c18 has a year element with the value '2018a). The emergence of the visual word form: Longitudinal evolution of category-specific ventral visual areas during reading acquisition' which contains a digit (or more) but is not a year. warn: Content of <title> element is entirely in lower-case case: Is that correct? 'response profiles obtained from the models.' warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c3) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c4) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c12) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c16) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c20) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c21) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c24) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c32) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c38) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c47) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c56) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c68) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c72) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c73) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct? warn: mixed-citation in reference (id=c77) has a publication-type='other'. Is that correct?

fred-atherden commented 6 months ago

This RP also has footnotes throughout which have just been entirely missed:

Image

<p>In the case of visual word recognition, a lot of these results come in the form of changes in the amplitude of specific components of the neural response evoked by stimuli that are designed to create interesting experimental contrasts.<sup>5</sup> Such evoked components reflect macro-level computations — that is, the net result of thousands of individual biological neurons working together. Taken together, the results indicate the presence of a processing pipeline, starting with the extraction of low-level visual features (e.g., edges, line segments), which are subsequently refined into more complex features (e.g., letter shapes) and further into lexical features (e.g., bigrams, words).<sup>6</sup> While neuroimaging studies provide us with information about what processing steps are performed where and when, the observed data alone yield little information as to what kind of computations are performed during these steps.<sup>7</sup> To develop such an understanding, we need to make these computations explicit, model them, and test and refine the model against the data provided by imaging studies.<sup>8</sup></p>
<p>In this study, we aimed to computationally reproduce the results of <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="c76">Vartiainen et al. (2011)</xref>, which is a representative <sc>meg</sc> study that employed experimental contrasts designed to study key processing steps throughout the entire visual word recognition pipeline. The authors catalogued the effects of the experimental contrasts on the amplitudes of all major evoked <sc>meg</sc> responses found in the data, and concluded that the significant effects could be attributed to three components that dominate the early <sc>meg</sc> time course during visual word recognition,<sup>9</sup> namely:</p>
<p><bold>type-<sc>i</sc></bold> This component peaks occipitally around 100 ms after stimulus onset, is modulated by the visual complexity of the stimulus and hence thought to reflect the processing of low-level visual features.<sup>10</sup> <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="c76">Vartiainen et al. (2011)</xref> used a contrast between stimuli with and without added visual noise to highlight this processing stage.</p>