MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2304438957 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhv320

Neural Processing of Second-Order Motion in the Suprasylvian Cortex of the Cat

2016· article· en· W2304438957 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurent Bussieres, Christian Casanova

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)NeurosciencePrimateMacaqueSpatial frequencyContrast (vision)GratingLuminancePhysicsPsychologyOpticsBiologyCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuronal responses to second-order motion, that is, to spatiotemporal variations of texture or contrast, have been reported in several cortical areas of mammals, including the middle-temporal (MT) area in primates. In this study, we investigated whether second-order responses are present in the cat posteromedial lateral suprasylvian (PMLS) cortex, a possible homolog of the primate area MT. The stimuli used were luminance-based sine-wave gratings (first-order) and contrast-modulated carrier stimuli (second-order), which consisted of a high-spatial-frequency static grating (carrier) whose contrast was modulated by a low-spatial-frequency drifting grating (envelope). Results indicate that most PMLS neurons responded to second-order motion and for the vast majority of cells, first- and second-order preferred directions were conserved. However, responses to second-order stimuli were significantly reduced when compared to those evoked by first-order gratings. Circular variance was increased for second-order stimuli, indicating that PMLS direction selectivity was weaker for this type of stimulus. Finally, carrier orientation selectivity was either absent or very broad and had no influence on the envelope's orientation selectivity. In conclusion, our data show that PMLS neurons exhibit similar first- and second-order response profiles and that, akin primate area MT cells, they perform a form-cue invariant analysis of motion signals.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207