Saccades during visual exploration align hippocampal 3–8 Hz rhythms in human and non-human primates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual exploration in primates depends on saccadic eye movements (SEMs) that cause alternations of neural suppression and enhancement. This modulation extends beyond retinotopic areas, and is thought to facilitate perception; yet saccades may also influence brain regions critical for forming memories of these exploratory episodes. The hippocampus, for example, shows oscillatory activity that is generally associated with encoding of information. Whether or how hippocampal oscillations are influenced by eye movements is unknown. We recorded the neural activity in the human and macaque hippocampus during visual scene search. Across species, SEMs were associated with a time-limited alignment of a low-frequency (3-8 Hz) rhythm. The phase alignment depended on the task and not only on eye movements per se, and the frequency band was not a direct consequence of saccade rate. Hippocampal theta-frequency oscillations are produced by other mammals during repetitive exploratory behaviors, including whisking, sniffing, echolocation, and locomotion. The present results may reflect a similar yet distinct primate homologue supporting active perception during exploration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".