MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Investigating the role of the superior colliculus in active vision with the visual search paradigm

2011· review· en· W1549987057 on OpenAlexafffund
Kelly Shen, Jerome Valero, Gregory S. Day, Martin Paré

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and InnovationCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSuperior colliculusPsychologyNeuroscienceVisual searchCognitive psychologyCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review here both the evidence that the functional visuomotor organization of the optic tectum is conserved in the primate superior colliculus (SC) and the evidence for the linking proposition that SC discriminating activity instantiates saccade target selection. We also present new data in response to questions that arose from recent SC visual search studies. First, we observed that SC discriminating activity predicts saccade initiation when monkeys perform an unconstrained search for a target defined by either a single visual feature or a conjunction of two features. Quantitative differences between the results in these two search tasks suggest, however, that SC discriminating activity does not only reflect saccade programming. This finding concurs with visual search studies conducted in posterior parietal cortex and the idea that, during natural active vision, visual attention is shifted concomitantly with saccade programming. Second, the analysis of a large neuronal sample recorded during feature search revealed that visual neurons in the superficial layers do possess discriminating activity. In addition, the hypotheses that there are distinct types of SC neurons in the deeper layers and that they are differently involved in saccade target selection were not substantiated. Third, we found that the discriminating quality of single-neuron activity substantially surpasses the ability of the monkeys to discriminate the target from distracters, raising the possibility that saccade target selection is a noisy process. We discuss these new findings in light of the visual search literature and the view that the SC is a visual salience map for orienting eye movements.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207