MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148522858 · doi:10.1152/jn.00653.2002

The Accessory Optic System Contributes to the Spatio-Temporal Tuning of Motion-Sensitive Pretectal Neurons

2003· article· en· W2148522858 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan A. Crowder, Hugo Lehmann, Marise B. Parent, Douglas R. Wylie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicRetinal Development and Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPretectal areaNeuroscienceReceptive fieldExcitatory postsynaptic potentialPhysicsInhibitory postsynaptic potentialNucleusChemistryThalamusBiophysicsMidbrainCentral nervous systemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nucleus of the basal optic root (nBOR) of the accessory optic system (AOS) and the pretectal nucleus lentiformis mesencephali (LM) are involved in the analysis of optic flow that results from self-motion and are important for oculomotor control. These neurons have large receptive fields and exhibit direction selectivity to large moving stimuli. In response to drifting sine wave gratings, LM and nBOR neurons are tuned to either low spatial/high temporal frequencies (SF, TF) or high SF/low TF stimuli. Given that velocity = TF/SF, these are referred to as "fast" and "slow" neurons, respectively. There is a heavy projection from the AOS to the pretectum, although its function is unknown. We recorded the directional and spatio-temporal tuning of LM units in pigeons before and after nBOR was inactivated by tetrodotoxin injection. After nBOR inactivation, changes in direction preference were observed for only one of 18 LM units. In contrast, the spatio-temporal tuning of LM units was dramatically altered by nBOR inactivation. Two major effects were observed. First, in response to motion in the preferred direction, most (82%) neurons showed a substantially reduced (mu = -67%) excitation to low SF/high TF gratings. Second, in response to motion in the anti-preferred direction, most (63%) neurons showed a dramatically reduced (mu = -78%) inhibition to high SF/low TF gratings. Thus the projection from the nBOR contributes to the spatio-temporal tuning rather than the directional tuning of LM neurons. We propose a descriptive model whereby LM receives inhibitory and excitatory input from "slow" and "fast" nBOR neurons, respectively.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations23
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicRetinal Development and DisordersFrench-language works237,207