Receptive-field structure of optic flow responsive Purkinje cells in the vestibulocerebellum of pigeons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neurons sensitive to optic flow patterns have been recorded in the the olivo-vestibulocerebellar pathway and extrastriate visual cortical areas in vertebrates, and in the visual neuropile of invertebrates. The complex spike activity (CSA) of Purkinje cells in the vestibulocerebellum (VbC) responds best to patterns of optic flow that result from either self-rotation or self-translation. Previous studies have suggested that these neurons have a receptive-field (RF) structure that "approximates" the preferred optic flowfield with a "bipartite" organization. Contrasting this, studies in invertebrate species indicate that optic flow sensitive neurons are precisely tuned to their preferred flowfield, such that the local motion sensitivities and local preferred directions within their RFs precisely match the local motion in that region of the preferred flowfield. In this study, CSA in the VbC of pigeons was recorded in response to a set of complex computer-generated optic flow stimuli, similar to those used in previous studies of optic flow neurons in primate extrastriate visual cortex, to test whether the receptive field was of a precise or bipartite organization. We found that these RFs were not precisely tuned to optic flow patterns. Rather, we conclude that these neurons have a bipartite RF structure that approximates the preferred optic flowfield by pooling motion subunits of only a few different direction preferences.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".