Neuronal mechanisms for visual stability: progress and problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How our vision remains stable in spite of the interruptions produced by saccadic eye movements has been a repeatedly revisited perceptual puzzle. The major hypothesis is that a corollary discharge (CD) or efference copy signal provides information that the eye has moved, and this information is used to compensate for the motion. There has been progress in the search for neuronal correlates of such a CD in the monkey brain, the best animal model of the human visual system. In this article, we briefly summarize the evidence for a CD pathway to frontal cortex, and then consider four questions on the relation of neuronal mechanisms in the monkey brain to stable visual perception. First, how can we determine whether the neuronal activity is related to stable visual perception? Second, is the activity a possible neuronal correlate of the proposed transsaccadic memory hypothesis of visual stability? Third, are the neuronal mechanisms modified by visual attention and does our perceived visual stability actually result from neuronal mechanisms related primarily to the central visual field? Fourth, does the pathway from superior colliculus through the pulvinar nucleus to visual cortex contribute to visual stability through suppression of the visual blur produced by saccades?
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".