MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135426456 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0184

Cortical mechanisms for trans-saccadic memory and integration of multiple object features

2011· review· en· W2135426456 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccadic maskingSaccadic suppression of image displacementEye movementWorking memoryPerceptionPsychologySaccadic eye movementNeuroscienceCognitive psychologyVisual memoryComputer scienceVisual perceptionVisual fieldObject (grammar)Artificial intelligenceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Constructing an internal representation of the world from successive visual fixations, i.e. separated by saccadic eye movements, is known as trans-saccadic perception. Research on trans-saccadic perception (TSP) has been traditionally aimed at resolving the problems of memory capacity and visual integration across saccades. In this paper, we review this literature on TSP with a focus on research showing that egocentric measures of the saccadic eye movement can be used to integrate simple object features across saccades, and that the memory capacity for items retained across saccades, like visual working memory, is restricted to about three to four items. We also review recent transcranial magnetic stimulation experiments which suggest that the right parietal eye field and frontal eye fields play a key functional role in spatial updating of objects in TSP. We conclude by speculating on possible cortical mechanisms for governing egocentric spatial updating of multiple objects in TSP.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.864

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.224
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.147 · 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