MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158439106 · doi:10.1152/jn.01037.2005

Responses of a Looming-Sensitive Neuron to Compound and Paired Object Approaches

2005· article· en· W2158439106 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Guest, John R. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoomingReceptive fieldNeuroscienceVisual fieldHabituationCommunicationNeuronArtificial intelligencePsychologyComputer visionComputer scienceBiological systemBiologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lobula giant movement detector (LGMD) and its target neuron, the descending contralateral movement detector (DCMD), constitute a motion-sensitive pathway in the locust visual system that responds preferentially to objects approaching on a collision course. LGMD receptive field properties, anisotropic distribution of local retinotopic inputs across the visual field, and localized habituation to repeated stimuli suggest that this pathway should be sensitive to approaches of individual objects within a complex visual scene. We presented locusts with compound looming objects while recording from the DCMD to test the effects of nonuniform edge expansion on looming responses. We also presented paired objects approaching from different regions of the visual field at nonoverlapping, closely timed and simultaneous approach intervals to study DCMD responses to multiple looming stimuli. We found that looming compound objects evoked characteristic responses in the DCMD and that the time of peak firing was consistent with predicted values based on a weighted ratio of the half size of each distinct object edge and the absolute approach velocity. We also found that the azimuthal position and interval of paired approaches affected DCMD firing properties and that DCMDs responded to individual objects approaching within 106 ms of each other. Moreover, comparisons between individual and paired approaches revealed that overlapping approaches are processed in a strongly sublinear manner. These findings are consistent with biophysical mechanisms that produce nonlinear integration of excitatory and feed-forward inhibitory inputs onto the LGMD that have been shown to underlie responses to looming stimuli.

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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations46
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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