MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097375765 · doi:10.1111/ejn.12175

Frames of reference for eye–head gaze shifts evoked during frontal eye field stimulation

2013· article· en· W2097375765 on OpenAlexafffund
Jachin A. Monteon, Hongying Wang, Julio Martínez-Trujillo, J. Douglas Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSupplementary eye fieldSuperior colliculusGazeEye movementFrontal eye fieldsSaccadeReference framePsychologyNeuroscienceVisual fieldSaccadic maskingComputer visionCommunicationComputer scienceFrame (networking)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The frontal eye field (FEF), in the prefrontal cortex, participates in the transformation of visual signals into saccade motor commands and in eye-head gaze control. The FEF is thought to show eye-fixed visual codes in head-restrained monkeys, but it is not known how it transforms these inputs into spatial codes for head-unrestrained gaze commands. Here, we tested if the FEF influences desired gaze commands within a simple eye-fixed frame, like the superior colliculus (SC), or in more complex egocentric frames like the supplementary eye fields (SEFs). We electrically stimulated 95 FEF sites in two head-unrestrained monkeys to evoke 3D eye-head gaze shifts and then mathematically rotated these trajectories into various reference frames. In theory, each stimulation site should specify a specific spatial goal when the evoked gaze shifts are plotted in the appropriate frame. We found that these motor output frames varied site by site, mainly within the eye-to-head frame continuum. Thus, consistent with the intermediate placement of the FEF within the high-level circuits for gaze control, its stimulation-evoked output showed an intermediate trend between the multiple reference frame codes observed in SEF-evoked gaze shifts and the simpler eye-fixed reference frame observed in SC-evoked movements. These results suggest that, although the SC, FEF and SEF carry eye-fixed information at the level of their unit response fields, this information is transformed differently in their output projections to the eye and head controllers.

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)0.002
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 score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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