MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159977483 · doi:10.1152/jn.00921.2005

Quantitative Reassessment of Speed Tuning in the Accessory Optic System and Pretectum of Pigeons

2005· article· en· W2159977483 on OpenAlexaff
Ian R. Winship, Nathan A. Crowder, Douglas R. Wylie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPretectal areaNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)Independence (probability theory)PhysicsPsychologyMathematicsStatisticsCentral nervous systemMidbrainCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The correlation model of motion detection has been used to describe visual motion processing in the pretectum and accessory optic system (AOS). One feature of correlation detectors is that they are tuned to a particular temporal frequency (TF) independent of the spatial frequency (SF) but not to a particular stimulus speed (speed = TF/SF). Previous work has suggested that a subset of neurons in the AOS and pretectum of pigeons show apparent speed tuning. However, this study used relatively liberal between-groups statistics to assess speed tuning. From studies of the motion-sensitive neurons in primate cortex, a rigorous within-groups test of speed tuning has been offered. A meta-analysis of the spatiotemporal tuning of units in the AOS and pretectum of pigeons using this within-groups analysis of speed tuning has been performed. We conclude that speed tuning in the AOS and pretectum is rarer than previously estimated, and there is remarkable diversity in the impact of SF on tuning for speed. In total, 18.6% of the units showed significant speed tuning whereas 39.8% showed significant SF/TF independence. However, many cells (41.5%) fell along a continuum between speed tuning and SF/TF independence. This diversity has also been noted in primate cortex and may reflect a general property of motion-sensitive systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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