The neural control of fast vs. slow vergence eye movements
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When looking between targets located in three-dimensional space, information about relative depth is sent from the visual cortex to the motor control centers in the brainstem, which are responsible for generating appropriate motor commands to move the eyes. Surprisingly, how the neurons in the brainstem use the depth information supplied by the visual cortex to precisely aim each eye on a visual target remains highly controversial. This review will consider the results of recent studies that have focused on determining how individual neurons contribute to realigning gaze when we look between objects located at different depths. In particular, the results of new experiments provide compelling evidence that the majority of saccadic neurons dynamically encode the movement of an individual eye, and show that the time-varying discharge of the saccadic neuron population encodes the drive required to account for vergence facilitation during disconjugate saccades. Notably, these results suggest that an additional input (i.e. from a separate vergence subsystem) is not required to shape the activity of motoneurons during disconjugate saccades. Furthermore, whereas motoneurons drive both fast and slow vergence movements, saccadic neurons discharge only during fast vergence movements, emphasizing the existence of distinct premotor pathways for controlling fast vs. slow vergence. Taken together, these recent findings contradict the traditional view that the brain is circuited with independent pathways for conjugate and vergence control, and thus provide an important new insight into how the brain controls three-dimensional gaze shifts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it