MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137310051 · doi:10.1162/089892902760807249

Contribution of the Primate Superior Colliculus to Inhibition of Return

2002· article· en· W2137310051 on OpenAlexaff
Michael C. Dorris, Raymond M. Klein, Stefan Everling, Douglas P. Munoz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInhibition of returnSuperior colliculusCued speechSaccadic maskingNeuroscienceSuperior ColliculiPsychologyStimulus (psychology)PrimateMidbrainSaccadeMacaquePremovement neuronal activityStimulationEye movementCognitionVisual attentionVisual systemCognitive psychologyVisual cortexCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phenomenon of inhibition of return (IOR) has generated considerable interest in cognitive neuroscience because of its putative functional role in visual search, that of placing inhibitory tags on objects that have been recently inspected so as to direct further search to novel items. Many behavioral parameters of this phenomenon have been clearly delineated, and based on indirect but converging evidence, the widely held consensus is that the midbrain superior colliculus (SC) is involved in the generation of IOR. We had previously trained monkeys on a saccadic IOR task and showed that they displayed IOR in a manner similar to that observed in humans. Here we recorded the activity of single neurons in the superficial and intermediate layers of the SC while the monkeys performed this IOR task. We found that when the target was presented at a previously cued location, the stimulus-related response was attenuated and the magnitude of this response was correlated with subsequent saccadic reaction times. Surprisingly, this observed attenuation of activity during IOR was not caused by active inhibition of these neurons because (a) they were, in fact, more active following the presentation of the cue in their response field, and (b) when we repeated the same experiment while using the saccadic response time induced by electrical micro-stimulation of the SC to judge the level of excitability of the SC circuitry during the IOR task, we found faster saccades were elicited from the cued location. Our findings demonstrate that the primate SC participates in the expression of IOR; however, the SC is not the site of the inhibition. Instead, the reduced activity in the SC reflects a signal reduction that has taken place upstream.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations276
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207