MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Selective representation of task‐relevant objects and locations in the monkey prefrontal cortex

2006· article· en· W2123356822 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Everling, Chris J. Tinsley, David Gaffan, John S. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexTask (project management)Representation (politics)NeurosciencePsychologyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceCognitive scienceCognitionPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the monkey prefrontal cortex (PFC), task context exerts a strong influence on neural activity. We examined different aspects of task context in a temporal search task. On each trial, the monkey (Macaca mulatta) watched a stream of pictures presented to left or right of fixation. The task was to hold fixation until seeing a particular target, and then to make an immediate saccade to it. Sometimes (unilateral task), the attended pictures appeared alone, with a cue at trial onset indicating whether they would be presented to left or right. Sometimes (bilateral task), the attended picture stream (cued side) was accompanied by an irrelevant stream on the opposite side. In two macaques, we recorded responses from a total of 161 cells in the lateral PFC. Many cells (75/161) showed visual responses. Object-selective responses were strongly shaped by task relevance - with stronger responses to targets than to nontargets, failure to discriminate one nontarget from another, and filtering out of information from an irrelevant stimulus stream. Location selectivity occurred rather independently of object selectivity, and independently in visual responses and delay periods between one stimulus and the next. On error trials, PFC activity followed the correct rules of the task, rather than the incorrect overt behaviour. Together, these results suggest a highly programmable system, with responses strongly determined by the rules and requirements of the task performed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations52
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207