MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080843849 · doi:10.1152/jn.00763.2003

Telencephalic Input to the Pretectum of Pigeons: An Electrophysiological and Pharmacological Inactivation Study

2004· article· en· W2080843849 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan A. Crowder, Clayton T. Dickson, Douglas R. Wylie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPretectal areaNeuroscienceStimulationElectrophysiologyOptokinetic reflexPhotic StimulationNucleusRetinalVisual cortexChemistryBiologyCentral nervous systemEye movementVisual perceptionMidbrain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pretectal nucleus lentiformis mesencephali (LM) and the nucleus of the basal optic root (nBOR) of the avian accessory optic system (AOS) are retinal-recipient visual nuclei involved in the analysis of optic flow that results from self-motion, and in the generation of the optokinetic response. Neurons in these nuclei show direction selectivity in response to large-field motion and are tuned in the spatiotemporal domain. In addition to retinal afferentation, both the nBOR and LM receive afferents from the Wulst, which is thought to be the avian homolog of the primary visual cortex. We examined the effects of Wulst electrical stimulation on the activity of LM neurons and recorded the directional and spatiotemporal tuning of LM neurons in pigeons before, during, and after the Wulst was temporarily inactivated by lidocaine injection. In response to Wulst electrical stimulation, LM neurons showed either short-latency excitation followed by longer-latency inhibition (W+ cells), or only a longer-latency inhibition (W- cells). The average response latencies for W+ and W- cells were 13.5 and 28.3 ms, respectively. The effects of Wulst stimulation did not correlate with either the directional or spatiotemporal tuning of the LM neurons. Injection of lidocaine into the nBOR reduced the longer-latency oscillations of W+ and W- cells. When the Wulst was temporarily inactivated by lidocaine neither the directional nor spatiotemporal response properties of LM neurons were affected. The possible functions of the projection from the Wulst to the LM are discussed.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207