MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Neural Code for Looming and Receding Motion Is Distributed over a Population of Electrosensory ON and OFF Contrast Cells

2014· article· en· W2087014334 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen E. Clarke, André Longtin, Leonard Maler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReceptive fieldStimulus (psychology)LoomingContrast (vision)Sensory systemNeurosciencePopulationPerceptionCommunicationPsychologyBiologyComputer visionComputer scienceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Object saliency is based on the relative local-to-background contrast in the physical signals that underlie perceptual experience. As such, contrast-detecting neurons (ON/OFF cells) are found in many sensory systems, responding respectively to increased or decreased intensity within their receptive field centers. This differential sensitivity suggests that ON and OFF cells initiate segregated streams of information for positive and negative sensory contrast. However, while recording in vivo from the ON and OFF cells of Apteronotus leptorhynchus, we report that the reversal of stimulus motion triggers paradoxical responses to electrosensory contrast. By considering the instantaneous firing rates of both ON and OFF cell populations, a bidirectionally symmetric representation of motion is achieved for both positive and negative contrast stimuli. Whereas the firing rates of the individual contrast detecting neurons convey scalar information, such as object distance, it is their sequential activation over longer timescales that track changes in the direction of movement.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207