MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944803540 · doi:10.1111/ejn.14432

Superior colliculus encodes visual saliency during smooth pursuit eye movements

2019· article· en· W2944803540 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian J. White, Laurent Itti, Douglas P. Munoz

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSuperior colliculusSmooth pursuitMidbrainStimulus (psychology)NeuroscienceSaccadeEye movementFixation (population genetics)GazeVisual fieldSuperior ColliculiPsychologySupplementary eye fieldVisual cortexVisual systemComputer visionComputer scienceCognitive psychologyBiologyCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The saliency map has played a long-standing role in models and theories of visual attention, and it is now supported by neurobiological evidence from several cortical and subcortical brain areas. While visual saliency is computed during moments of active fixation, it is not known whether the same is true while engaged in smooth pursuit of a moving stimulus, which is very common in real-world vision. Here, we examined extrafoveal saliency coding in the superior colliculus, a midbrain area associated with attention and gaze, during smooth pursuit eye movements. We found that SC neurons from the superficial visual layers showed a robust representation of peripheral saliency evoked by a conspicuous stimulus embedded in a wide-field array of goal-irrelevant stimuli. In contrast, visuomotor neurons from the intermediate saccade-related layers showed a poor saliency representation, even though most of these neurons were visually responsive during smooth pursuit. These results confirm and extend previous findings that place the SCs in a unique role as a saliency map that monitors peripheral vision during foveation of stationary and now moving objects.

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 score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.836

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207