MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2742875515 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0182519

Characterization of neurons in the primate medial intraparietal area reveals a joint representation of intended reach direction and amplitude

2017· article· en· W2742875515 on OpenAlexafffund
Rishi Rajalingham, Sam Musallam

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsNeurosciencePremotor cortexAmplitudePath integrationPremovement neuronal activityEncoding (memory)Computer sciencePhysicsBiologyDorsumAnatomyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To support accurate memory-guided reaching, the brain must represent both the direction and amplitude of reaches in a movement plan. Several cortical areas have been shown to represent the direction of a planned reaching movement, but the neuronal representation of reach amplitude is still unclear, especially in sensory-motor integration areas. To investigate this, we recorded from neurons in the medial intraparietal area (MIP) of monkeys performing a variable amplitude memory reach task. In one monkey, we additionally recorded from the dorsal premotor cortex (PMd) for direct cross-area comparisons. In both areas, we found modest but significant proportions of neurons with movement-planning activity sensitive to reach amplitude. However, reach amplitude was under-represented relative to direction in the neuronal population, with approximately one third as many selective neurons. We observed an interaction between neuronal selectivity for amplitude and direction; neurons in both areas exhibited significant modulation of neuronal activity by reach amplitude in some but not all directions. Consistent with an encoding of reach goals as a position in visual space, the response patterns of MIP/PMd neurons were best predicted by 2D Gaussian position encoding model, in contrast to a number of alternative direction and amplitude tuning models. Taken together, these results suggest that amplitude and direction jointly modulate activity in MIP, as in PMd, to form representations of intended reach position.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicMotor Control and Adaptation→French-language works237,207→