MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949798492 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0024-18.2018

Frontal Eye Field Inactivation Reduces Saccade Preparation in the Superior Colliculus but Does Not Alter How Preparatory Activity Relates to Saccades of a Given Latency

2018· article· en· W2949798492 on OpenAlexafffund
Suryadeep Dash, Tyler R. Peel, Stephen G. Lomber, Brian D. Corneil

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersInstitute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and AddictionCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsSaccadeSuperior colliculusSaccadic maskingNeurosciencePsychologySuperior ColliculiBrainstemEye movementFrontal eye fieldsNeural activityExcitatory postsynaptic potentialPremovement neuronal activityAudiologyMedicineInhibitory postsynaptic potentialVisual systemVisual cortex

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

iSC low-frequency activity precede shorter SRTs. The frontal eye fields (FEFs) are one likely source of iSC preparatory activity, since FEF preparatory activity is also inversely related to SRT. To better understand the FEF's role in saccade preparation, and the way in which such preparation relates to SRT, in two male rhesus monkeys, we compared iSC preparatory activity across unilateral reversible cryogenic inactivation of the FEF. FEF inactivation increased contralesional SRTs, and lowered ipsilesional iSC preparatory activity. FEF inactivation also reduced rostral iSC activity during the gap period. Importantly, the distributions of SRTs generated with or without FEF inactivation overlapped, enabling us to conduct a novel population-level analyses examining iSC preparatory activity just before generation of SRT-matched saccades. When matched for SRTs, we observed no change during FEF inactivation in the relationship between iSC preparatory activity and SRT-matched saccades across a range of SRTs, even for the occasional express saccade. Thus, while our results emphasize that the FEF has an overall excitatory influence on preparatory activity in the iSC, the communication between the iSC and downstream oculomotor brainstem is unaltered for SRT-matched saccades.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuroSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207