MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Saccades during Object Viewing Modulate Oscillatory Phase in the Superior Temporal Sulcus

2011· article· en· W1982495991 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian M. Bartlett, Shima Ovaysikia, Nikos K. Logothetis, Kari L. Hoffman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFixation (population genetics)Saccadic maskingMacaqueNeuroscienceEye movementVisual processingPsychologyVisual perceptionPerceptionVisual cortexCommunicationComputer visionSaccadic suppression of image displacementArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Saccadic eye movements (SEMs) are the primary means of gating visual information in primates and strongly influence visual perception. The active exploration of the visual environment ("active vision") via SEMs produces suppression during saccades and enhancement afterward (i.e., during fixation) in occipital visual areas. In lateral temporal lobe visual areas, the influence, if any, of eye movements is less well understood, despite the necessity of these areas for forming coherent percepts of objects. The upper bank of the superior temporal sulcus (uSTS) is one such area whose sensitivity to SEMs is unknown. We therefore examined how saccades modulate local field potentials (LFPs) in the uSTS of macaque monkeys while they viewed face and nonface object stimuli. LFP phase concentration increased following fixation onset in the alpha (8-14 Hz), beta (14-30 Hz), and gamma (30-60 Hz) bands and was distinct from the image-evoked response. Furthermore, near-coincident onsets of fixation and image presentation--like those occurring in active vision--led to enhanced responses through greater phase concentration in the same frequency bands. Finally, single-unit activity was modulated by the phase of alpha, beta, and gamma oscillations, suggesting that the observed phase-locking influences spike timing in uSTS. Previous research implicates phase concentration in these frequency bands as a correlate of perceptual performance (Womelsdorf et al., 2006; Bosman et al., 2009). Together, these results demonstrate sensitivity to eye movements in an object-processing region of the brain and represent a plausible neural basis for the enhancement of object processing during active vision.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207