MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Monkey Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Sends Task-Selective Signals Directly to the Superior Colliculus

2006· article· en· W2024645288 on OpenAlexafffund
Kevin Johnston, Stefan Everling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityRobarts Clinical Trials
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSuperior colliculusDorsolateral prefrontal cortexNeurosciencePrimatePsychologyPrefrontal cortexStimulus (psychology)DorsolateralAntisaccade taskMacaqueMidbrainCognitionConsumer neuroscienceSaccadeCognitive psychologyEye movementCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) has been implicated in the ability to perform complex behaviors requiring the implementation of cognitive control. A central supposition of models of prefrontal function is that the DLPFC engages control by selectively modulating the activity of target structures to which it is connected, but no studies in the primate have directly investigated DLPFC output signals. Here, we recorded the activity of DLPFC neurons identified as sending a direct projection to the superior colliculus, a midbrain oculomotor structure, while monkeys performed alternating blocks of trials in which they had to look toward a flashed peripheral stimulus (prosaccades) and trials in which they had to look away from the stimulus in the opposite direction (antisaccades). We report the first direct evidence that the primate DLPFC sends task-selective signals to a target structure. This supports the notion that the DLPFC orchestrates the activity of other brain areas in accordance with task requirements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations145
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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