Pretectal projections to the oculomotor cerebellum in hummingbirds (<i>Calypte anna</i>), zebra finches (<i>Taeniopygia guttata</i>), and pigeons (<i>Columba livia</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In birds, optic flow is processed by a retinal-recipient nucleus in the pretectum, the nucleus lentiformis mesencephali (LM), which then projects to the cerebellum, a key site for sensorimotor integration. Previous studies have shown that the LM is hypertrophied in hummingbirds, and that LM cell response properties differ between hummingbirds and other birds. Given these differences in anatomy and physiology, we ask here if there are also species differences in the connectivity of the LM. The LM is separated into lateral and medial subdivisions, which project to the oculomotor cerebellum and the vestibulocerebellum. In pigeons, the projection to the vestibulocerebellum largely arises from the lateral LM; the projection to the oculomotor cerebellum largely arises from the medial LM. Here, using retrograde tracing, we demonstrate differences in the distribution of projections in these pathways between Anna's hummingbirds (Calypte anna), zebra finches (Taeniopygia guttata), and pigeons (Columba livia). In all three species, the projections to the vestibulocerebellum were largely from lateral LM. In contrast, projections to the oculomotor cerebellum in hummingbirds and zebra finches do not originate in the medial LM (as in pigeons) but instead largely arise from pretectal structures just medial, the nucleus laminaris precommissuralis and nucleus principalis precommissuralis. These species differences in projection patterns provide further evidence that optic flow circuits differ among bird species with distinct modes of flight.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".