MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150560187 · doi:10.1152/jn.00398.2013

Bilateral saccadic deficits following large and reversible inactivation of unilateral frontal eye field

2013· article· en· W2150560187 on OpenAlexafffund
Tyler R. Peel, Kevin Johnston, Stephen G. Lomber, Brian D. Corneil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsOntario Brain InstituteWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSaccadic maskingDisinhibitionNeuroscienceFrontal eye fieldsEye movementSaccadeSuperior colliculusChemistryExcitatory postsynaptic potentialPsychologyInhibitory postsynaptic potential

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inactivation permits direct assessment of the functional contribution of a given brain area to behavior. Previous inactivation studies of the frontal eye field (FEF) have either used large permanent ablations or reversible pharmacological techniques that only inactivate a small volume of tissue. Here we evaluated the impact of large, yet reversible, FEF inactivation on visually guided, delayed, and memory-guided saccades, using cryoloops implanted in the arcuate sulcus. While FEF inactivation produced the expected triad of contralateral saccadic deficits (increased reaction time, decreased accuracy and peak velocity) and performance errors (neglect or misdirected saccades), we also found consistent increases in reaction times of ipsiversive saccades in all three tasks. In addition, FEF inactivation did not increase the proportion of premature saccades to ipsilateral targets, as was predicted on the basis of pharmacological studies. Consistent with previous studies, greater deficits accompanied saccades toward extinguished visual cues. Our results attest to the functional contribution of the FEF to saccades in both directions. We speculate that the comparative effects of different inactivation techniques relate to the volume of inactivated tissue within the FEF. Larger inactivation volumes may reveal the functional contribution of more sparsely distributed neurons within the FEF, such as those related to ipsiversive saccades. Furthermore, while focal FEF inactivation may disinhibit the mirroring site in the other FEF, larger inactivation volumes may induce broad disinhibition in the other FEF that paradoxically prolongs oculomotor processing via increased competitive interactions.

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)0.000
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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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