MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620350214 · doi:10.1167/17.5.20

Effect of allocentric landmarks on primate gaze behavior in a cue conflict task

2017· article· en· W2620350214 on OpenAlexafffund
Jirui Li, Amirsaman Sajad, Robert A. Marino, Xiaogang Yan, Saihong Sun, Hongying Wang, J. Douglas Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vision · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchYork University
KeywordsLandmarkGazeFixation pointFixation (population genetics)SaccadePsychologyWeightingEye movementVisual fieldPrimateComputer visionCommunicationArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceNeurosciencePhysicsMedicinePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relative contributions of egocentric versus allocentric cues on goal-directed behavior have been examined for reaches, but not saccades. Here, we used a cue conflict task to assess the effect of allocentric landmarks on gaze behavior. Two head-unrestrained macaques maintained central fixation while a target flashed in one of eight radial directions, set against a continuously present visual landmark (two horizontal/vertical lines spanning the visual field, intersecting at one of four oblique locations 11° from the target). After a 100-ms delay followed by a 100-ms mask, the landmark was displaced by 8° in one of eight radial directions. After a second delay (300-700 ms), the fixation point extinguished, signaling for a saccade toward the remembered target. When the landmark was stable, saccades showed a significant but small (mean 15%) pull toward the landmark intersection, and endpoint variability was significantly reduced. When the landmark was displaced, gaze endpoints shifted significantly, not toward the landmark, but partially (mean 25%) toward a virtual target displaced like the landmark. The landmark had a larger influence when it was closer to initial fixation, and when it shifted away from the target, especially in saccade direction. These findings suggest that internal representations of gaze targets are weighted between egocentric and allocentric cues, and this weighting is further modulated by specific spatial parameters.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of VisionSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207