MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Local Population Synchrony and the Encoding of Eye Position in the Primate Neural Integrator

2015· article· en· W2048986771 on OpenAlexafffund
Alexis Dale, Kathleen E. Cullen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMacaqueTonic (physiology)NeurosciencePrimateEye movementElectrophysiologyNucleusPopulationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Encoding horizontal eye position in the oculomotor system occurs through temporal integration of eye velocity inputs to produce tonic outputs. The nucleus prepositus is commonly believed to be the "neural integrator" that accomplishes this function through the activity of its ensemble of predominantly burst-tonic neurons. Single-unit characterizations and labeling studies of these neurons have suggested that their collective output is achieved through local feedback loops produced by direct connections between them. If this is the case, then the ensemble of burst-tonic neurons should exhibit correlated activity. To obtain electrophysiological evidence of local interactions between neurons, we simultaneously recorded pairs (n = 29) of burst-tonic neurons in the nucleus prepositus of rhesus macaque monkeys using eight-channel linear microelectrode arrays. We computed the magnitude of synchrony between their spike trains as a function of eye position during ocular fixations and as a function of distance between neurons. Importantly, we found that neurons exhibit unexpected levels of positive synchrony, which is maximal during contralateral fixations and weakest when neurons are located far apart from one another (>300 μm). Together, our results support a role for shared inputs to ipsilateral pairs of burst-tonic neurons in the encoding of eye position in the primate nucleus prepositus.

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 score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.152

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations18
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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