MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130226520 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2013.0068

Control of the superior colliculus by the lateral prefrontal cortex

2013· review· en· W2130226520 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSuperior colliculusNeurosciencePrefrontal cortexStimulus (psychology)Excitatory postsynaptic potentialPsychologyNeurophysiologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialVisual cortexCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several decades of patient, functional imaging and neurophysiological studies have supported a model in which the lateral prefrontal cortex (PFC) acts to suppress unwanted saccades by inhibiting activity in the oculomotor system. However, recent results from combined PFC deactivation and neural recordings of the superior colliculus in monkeys demonstrate that the primary influence of the PFC on the oculomotor system is excitatory, and stands in direct contradiction to the inhibitory model of PFC function. Although erroneous saccades towards a visual stimulus are commonly labelled reflexive in patients with PFC damage or dysfunction, the latencies of most of these saccades are outside of the range of express saccades, which are triggered directly by the visual stimulus. Deactivation and pharmacological manipulation studies in monkeys suggest that response errors following PFC damage or dysfunction are not the result of a failure in response suppression but can best be understood in the context of a failure to maintain and implement the proper task set.

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.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.218 · 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