Representation of Head-Centric Flow in the Human Motion Complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent neuroimaging studies have identified putative homologs of macaque middle temporal area (area MT) and medial superior temporal area (area MST) in humans. Little is known about the integration of visual and nonvisual signals in human motion areas compared with monkeys. Through extra-retinal signals, the brain can factor out the components of visual flow on the retina that are induced by eye-in-head and head-in-space rotations and achieve a representation of flow relative to the head (head-centric flow) or body (body-centric flow). Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to test whether extra-retinal eye-movement signals modulate responses to visual flow in the human MT+ complex. We distinguished between MT and MST and tested whether subdivisions of these areas may transform the retinal flow into head-centric flow. We report that interactions between eye-movement signals and visual flow are not evenly distributed across MT+. Pursuit hardly influenced the response of MT to flow, whereas the responses in MST to the same retinal stimuli were stronger during pursuit than during fixation. We also identified two subregions in which the flow-related responses were boosted significantly by pursuit, one overlapping part of MST. In addition, we found evidence of a metric relation between rotational flow relative to the head and fMRI signals in a subregion of MST. The latter findings provide an important advance over published single-cell recordings in monkey MST. A visual representation of the rotation of the head in the world derived from head-centric flow may supplement semicircular canals signals and is appropriate for cross-calibrating vestibular and visual signals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".