Role of the Superior Colliculus in Choosing Mixed-Strategy Saccades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Game theory outlines optimal response strategies during mixed-strategy competitions. The neural processes involved in choosing individual strategic actions, however, remain poorly understood. Here, we tested whether the superior colliculus (SC), a brain region critical for generating sensory-guided saccades, is also involved in choosing saccades under strategic conditions. Monkeys were free to choose either of two saccade targets as they competed against a computer opponent during the mixed-strategy game "matching pennies." The accuracy with which presaccadic SC activity predicted upcoming choice gradually increased in the time leading up to the saccade. Probing the SC with suprathreshold stimulation demonstrated that these evolving signals were functionally involved in preparing strategic saccades. Finally, subthreshold stimulation of the SC increased the likelihood that contralateral saccades were selected. Together, our results suggest that motor regions of the brain play an active role in choosing strategic actions rather than passively executing those prespecified by upstream executive regions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".