MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Functional Maturation of the Macaque's Lateral Geniculate Nucleus

2005· article· en· W2142063413 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. Anthony Movshon, Lynne Kiorpes, Michael J. Hawken, James R. Cavanaugh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institutes of HealthNational Eye InstituteYork UniversityHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsLateral geniculate nucleusParvocellular cellNeuroscienceReceptive fieldMacaqueVisual cortexRetinalContrast (vision)RetinaGeniculateVisual systemPsychologySpatial frequencyBiologyPhysicsCentral nervous systemNucleusOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vision in infant primates is poor, but it is not known which structures in the eye or brain set the main limits to its development. We studied the visual response properties of 348 neurons recorded in the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) of macaque monkeys aged 1 week to adult. We measured spatial and temporal frequency tuning curves and contrast responses with drifting achromatic sinusoidal gratings. Even in animals as young as 1 week, the main visual response properties of neurons in the magnocellular (M) and parvocellular (P) divisions of the LGN were qualitatively normal, including the spatial organization of receptive fields and the characteristic response properties that differentiate M- and P-cells. At 1 and 4 weeks, spatial and temporal resolution were less than one-half of adult values, whereas contrast gain and peak response rates for optimal stimuli were about two-thirds of adult values. Adult levels were reached by 24 weeks. Analysis of correlations between S-potentials representing retinal inputs and LGN cells suggested that the LGN follows retinal input as faithfully in infants as in adults, implicating retinal development as the main driving force in LGN development. Comparisons with previously published psychophysical data and ideal observer models suggest that the relatively modest changes in LGN responses during maturation impose no significant limits on visual performance. In contrast to previous studies, we conclude that these limits are set by neural development in the visual cortex, not in or peripheral to the LGN.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations59
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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