MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2198651437 · doi:10.1152/jn.00788.2015

Single-trial decoding of intended eye movement goals from lateral prefrontal cortex neural ensembles

2015· article· en· W2198651437 on OpenAlexafffund
Chadwick Boulay, Florian Pieper, Matthew L. Leavitt, Julio Martínez-Trujillo, Adam Sachs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicEEG and Brain-Computer Interfaces
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityMcGill UniversityOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSaccadeBrain–computer interfaceNeuroscienceComputer scienceEye movementSet (abstract data type)Prefrontal cortexGazePsychologyCognitionElectroencephalographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neurons in the lateral prefrontal cortex (LPFC) encode sensory and cognitive signals, as well as commands for goal-directed actions. Therefore, the LPFC might be a good signal source for a goal-selection brain-computer interface (BCI) that decodes the intended goal of a motor action previous to its execution. As a first step in the development of a goal-selection BCI, we set out to determine if we could decode simple behavioral intentions to direct gaze to eight different locations in space from single-trial LPFC neural activity. We recorded neuronal spiking activity from microelectrode arrays implanted in area 8A of the LPFC of two adult macaques while they made visually guided saccades to one of eight targets in a center-out task. Neuronal activity encoded target location immediately after target presentation, during a delay epoch, during the execution of the saccade, and every combination thereof. Many (40%) of the neurons that encoded target location during multiple epochs preferred different locations during different epochs. Despite heterogeneous and dynamic responses, the neuronal feature set that best predicted target location was the averaged firing rates from the entire trial and it was best classified using linear discriminant analysis (63.6-96.9% in 12 sessions, mean 80.3%; information transfer rate: 21-59, mean 32.8 bits/min). Our results demonstrate that it is possible to decode intended saccade target location from single-trial LPFC activity and suggest that the LPFC is a suitable signal source for a goal-selection cognitive BCI.

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)0.000
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations24
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicEEG and Brain-Computer InterfacesFrench-language works237,207