MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910016083 · doi:10.7554/elife.40025

Comparisons between the ON- and OFF-edge motion pathways in the Drosophila brain

2019· article· en· W2910016083 on OpenAlexaff
Kazunori Shinomiya, Gary B. Huang, Zhiyuan Lu, Toufiq Parag, C. Shan Xu, Roxanne Aniceto, Namra Ansari, Natasha Cheatham, Shirley A Lauchie, Erika Neace, Omotara Ogundeyi, Christopher Ordish, David Peel, Aya Shinomiya, Claire Smith, Satoko Takemura, Iris Talebi, Patricia K. Rivlin, Aljoscha Nern, Louis K. Scheffer, Stephen M. Plaza, Ian A. Meinertzhagen

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsConnectomeNeuroscienceDrosophila melanogasterReceptive fieldSynapseBiologyVisual systemComputer scienceFunctional connectivityVisual cortex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

, recently discovered synapse-level connectomes in the optic lobe, particularly in ON-pathway (T4) receptive-field circuits, in concert with physiological studies, suggest a motion model that is increasingly intricate when compared with the ubiquitous Hassenstein-Reichardt model. By contrast, our knowledge of OFF-pathway (T5) has been incomplete. Here, we present a conclusive and comprehensive connectome that, for the first time, integrates detailed connectivity information for inputs to both the T4 and T5 pathways in a single EM dataset covering the entire optic lobe. With novel reconstruction methods using automated synapse prediction suited to such a large connectome, we successfully corroborate previous findings in the T4 pathway and comprehensively identify inputs and receptive fields for T5. Although the two pathways are probably evolutionarily linked and exhibit many similarities, we uncover interesting differences and interactions that may underlie their distinct functional properties.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations161
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207