MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intrinsic Reference Frames of Superior Colliculus Visuomotor Receptive Fields during Head-Unrestrained Gaze Shifts

2011· article· en· W2013661062 on OpenAlexafffund
Joseph F. X. DeSouza, G. P. Keith, Xiaogang Yan, Gunnar Blohm, H. Wang, J. Douglas Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchYork University
KeywordsReceptive fieldGazeSaccadeSuperior colliculusFixation (population genetics)Reference frameEye movementArtificial intelligenceVisual fieldComputer visionComputer scienceFrame of referencePopulationPsychologyCommunicationNeurosciencePhysicsFrame (networking)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sensorimotor neuron's receptive field and its frame of reference are easily conflated within the natural variability of spatial behavior. Here, we capitalized on such natural variations in 3-D eye and head positions during head-unrestrained gaze shifts to visual targets in two monkeys: to determine whether intermediate/deep layer superior colliculus (SC) receptive fields code visual targets or gaze kinematics, within four different frames of reference. Visuomotor receptive fields were either characterized during gaze shifts to visual targets from a central fixation position (32 U) or were partially characterized from each of three initial fixation points (31 U). Natural variations of initial 3-D gaze and head orientation (including torsion) provided spatial separation between four different coordinate frame models (space, head, eye, fixed-vector relative to fixation), whereas natural saccade errors provided spatial separation between target and gaze positions. Using a new statistical method based on predictive sum-of-squares, we found that in our population of 63 neurons (1) receptive field fits to target positions were significantly better than fits to actual gaze shift locations and (2) eye-centered models gave significantly better fits than the head or space frame. An intermediate frames analysis confirmed that individual neuron fits were distributed target-in-eye coordinates. Gaze position "gain" effects with the spatial tuning required for a 3-D reference frame transformation were significant in 23% (7/31) of neurons tested. We conclude that the SC primarily represents gaze targets relative to the eye but also carries early signatures of the 3-D sensorimotor transformation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.636

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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