MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057156642 · doi:10.1111/ejn.12115

Motion parallax processing in pigeon (<i>Columba livia</i>) pretectal neurons

2013· article· en· W2057156642 on OpenAlexafffund
Qian Xiao, Barrie J. Frost

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParallaxReceptive fieldComputer visionPretectal areaArtificial intelligenceMotion perceptionPhysicsLoomingMotion (physics)Horizontal planeNeuroscienceComputer scienceCommunicationBiologyOpticsPsychologyGeologyMidbrainGeodesy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the visual system of invertebrates and vertebrates there are specialised groups of motion-sensitive neurons, with large receptive fields, which are optimally tuned to respond to optic flow produced by the animals' movement through the 3-D world. From their response characteristics, shared frame of reference with the vestibular or inertial system, and anatomical connections, these neurons have been implicated in the stabilisation of retinal images, the control of posture and balance, and the animal's motion trajectories through the world. Using standard electrophysiological techniques and computer-generated stimuli, we show that some of these flow-field neurons in the pretectal nucleus lentiformis mesencephali in pigeons appear to be processing motion parallax. Two large overlapping planes of random dots moving independently were used to simulate motion parallax, in which one with larger dots was moved fast and the other with smaller dots was moved slowly in the opposite direction. Their neural responses to these two superimposed planes were facilitated above those produced by a single plane of moving dots and those produced by two layers moving in the same direction. Furthermore, some of these neurons preferred backward motion in the visual field and others preferred forward motion, suggesting that they may separately code visual objects 'nearer' and 'farther' than the stabilised ('on') plane during forward translational motion. A simple system is proposed whereby the relative activity in 'near', 'far' and 'on' populations could code depth through motion parallax in a metameric manner similar to that employed to code color vision and stereopsis.

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 score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.232 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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