MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067043329 · doi:10.1152/jn.00231.2003

Static Ocular Counterroll Is Implemented Through the 3-D Neural Integrator

2003· article· en· W2067043329 on OpenAlexaff
J. Douglas Crawford, Douglas Tweed, Tutis Vilis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityCanadian Institutes of Health Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTonic (physiology)ReflexVestibulo–ocular reflexVestibular systemIntegratorVestibular nucleiPhysicsControl theory (sociology)NeuroscienceChemistryComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Static head roll about the naso-occipital axis is known to produce an opposite ocular counterroll with a gain of approximately 10%, but the purpose and neural mechanism of this response remain obscure. In theory counterroll could be maintained either by direct tonic vestibular inputs to motoneurons, or by a neurally integrated pulse, as observed in the saccade generator and vestibulo-ocular reflex. When simulated together with ocular drift related to torsional integrator failure, the direct tonic input model predicted that the pattern of drift would shift torsionally as in ordinary counterroll, but the integrated pulse model predicted that the equilibrium position of torsional drift would be unaffected by head roll. This was tested experimentally by measuring ocular counterroll in 2 monkeys after injection of muscimol into the mesencephalic interstitial nucleus of Cajal. Whereas 90 degrees head roll produced a mean ocular counterroll of 8.5 degrees (+/-0.7 degrees SE) in control experiments, the torsional equilibrium position observed during integrator failure failed to counterroll, showing a torsional shift of only 0.3 degrees (+/-0.6 degrees SE). This result contradicted the direct tonic input model, but was consistent with models that implement counterroll by a neurally integrated pulse.

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)0.000
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 score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations28
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207