Temporal Processing of Saccade Targets in Parietal Cortex Area LIP During Visual Search
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied whether the lateral intraparietal (LIP) area-a subdivision of parietal cortex anatomically interposed between visual cortical areas and saccade executive centers-contains neurons with activity patterns sufficient to contribute to the active process of selecting saccade targets in visual search. Visually responsive neurons were recorded while monkeys searched for a color-different target presented concurrently with seven distractors evenly distributed in a circular search array. We found that LIP neurons initially responded indiscriminately to the presentation of a visual stimulus in their response fields, regardless of its feature and identity. Their activation nevertheless evolved to signal the search target before saccade initiation: an ideal observer could reliably discriminate the target from the individual activation of 60% of neurons, on average, 138 ms after stimulus presentation and 26 ms before saccade initiation. Importantly, the timing of LIP neuronal discrimination varied proportionally with reaction times. These findings suggest that LIP activity reflects the selection of both the search target and the targeting saccade during active visual search.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".