Adaptation and habituation of visual responses in the superficial and intermediate layers of the superior colliculus (SC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One neural correlate of visual attention is a decrease in the neural response to a target after prior presentation of an orienting ‘cue’ (e.g. inhibition of return). This decreased responding could be the result of repeated stimulation of a neuron's receptive field resulting in either ‘adaptation’ - a lower level mechanism related to neural fatigue, or ‘habituation’ - where an organism stops responding to an irrelevant stimulus but recovers the response after a change in stimulus properties. We dissociated adaptation from habituation in superficial (SCs) and intermediate (SCi) layer neurons of the SC, a hub of oculomotor and attentional processing. SCs receives visual input from the retina directly or via V1, while the SCi receives convergent input from visual and motor areas. Monkeys were rewarded for fixating a central point while a series of 7 successive stimuli were briefly flashed (100 ms duration; 100–400 ms interval) in the receptive field of the neuron. On 70% of trials all flashed stimuli were identical, while on others, the 4th was either brighter, dimmer or absent (10% each). If reduced neural response is due to habituation, some recovery of the response (dishabituation) should occur to any oddball stimulus. However, if the reduced response is due to adaptation, the response should be further reduced after the brighter, but recover after the dimmer or absent stimulus. The largest decrease in response (often [[gt]] than 50%) was to the second stimulus, and subsequent stimuli resulted in only small further reductions. The shorter the inter-flash interval, the greater these reductions. The pattern was globally similar in SCs and SCi, but there was a greater reduction to the 3–7th stimuli in SCi. Responses to oddball stimuli in SCs neurons were suggestive of adaptation, while responses in SCi neurons showed features of both adaptation and habituation.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".