Mechanisms of Saccadic Suppression in Primate Cortical Area V4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Psychophysical studies have shown that subjects are often unaware of visual stimuli presented around the time of an eye movement. This saccadic suppression is thought to be a mechanism for maintaining perceptual stability. The brain might accomplish saccadic suppression by reducing the gain of visual responses to specific stimuli or by simply suppressing firing uniformly for all stimuli. Moreover, the suppression might be identical across the visual field or concentrated at specific points. To evaluate these possibilities, we recorded from individual neurons in cortical area V4 of nonhuman primates trained to execute saccadic eye movements. We found that both modes of suppression were evident in the visual responses of these neurons and that the two modes showed different spatial and temporal profiles: while gain changes started earlier and were more widely distributed across visual space, nonspecific suppression was found more often in the peripheral visual field, after the completion of the saccade. Peripheral suppression was also associated with increased noise correlations and stronger local field potential oscillations in the α frequency band. This pattern of results suggests that saccadic suppression shares some of the circuitry responsible for allocating voluntary attention. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: We explore our surroundings by looking at things, but each eye movement that we make causes an abrupt shift of the visual input. Why doesn't the world look like a film recorded on a shaky camera? The answer in part is a brain mechanism called saccadic suppression, which reduces the responses of visual neurons around the time of each eye movement. Here we reveal several new properties of the underlying mechanisms. First, the suppression operates differently in the central and peripheral visual fields. Second, it appears to be controlled by oscillations in the local field potentials at frequencies traditionally associated with attention. These results suggest that saccadic suppression shares the brain circuits responsible for actively ignoring irrelevant 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".