Second tectofugal pathway in a songbird (<i>Taeniopygia guttata</i>) revisited: Tectal and lateral pontine projections to the posterior thalamus, thence to the intermediate nidopallium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Birds are almost always said to have two visual pathways from the retina to the telencephalon: thalamofugal terminating in the Wulst, and tectofugal terminating in the entopallium. Often ignored is a second tectofugal pathway that terminates in the nidopallium medial to and separate from the entopallium (e.g., Gamlin and Cohen [1986] J Comp Neurol 250:296-310). Using standard tract-tracing and electroanatomical techniques, we extend earlier evidence of a second tectofugal pathway in songbirds (Wild [1994] J Comp Neurol 349:512-535), by showing that visual projections to nucleus uvaeformis (Uva) of the posterior thalamus in zebra finches extend farther rostrally than to Uva, as generally recognized in the context of the song control system. Projections to "rUva" resulted from injections of biotinylated dextran amine into the lateral pontine nucleus (PL), and led to extensive retrograde labeling of tectal neurons, predominantly in layer 13. Injections in rUva also resulted in extensive retrograde labeling of predominantly layer 13 tectal neurons, retrograde labeling of PL neurons, and anterograde labeling of PL. It thus appears that some tectal neurons could project to rUva and PL via branched axons. Ascending projections of rUva terminated throughout a visually responsive region of the intermediate nidopallium (NI) lying between the nucleus interface medially and the entopallium laterally. Lastly, as shown by Clarke in pigeons ([1977] J Comp Neurol 174:535-552), we found that PL projects to caudal cerebellar folia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".