MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Looming and receding visual networks in awake marmosets investigated with fMRI

2020· article· en· W3015988964 on OpenAlexafffund
Justine Cléry, David J. Schaeffer, Yuki Hori, Kyle M. Gilbert, Lauren K. Hayrynen, Joseph S. Gati, Ravi S. Menon, Stefan Everling

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroImage · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsLoomingNeurosciencePsychologyMacaquePosterior parietal cortexMarmosetSuperior colliculusContext (archaeology)PutamenCognitive psychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An object that is looming toward a subject or receding away contains important information for determining if this object is dangerous, beneficial or harmless. This information (motion, direction, identity, time-to-collision, size, velocity) is analyzed by the brain in order to execute the appropriate behavioral responses depending on the context: fleeing, freezing, grasping, eating, exploring. In the current study, we performed ultra-high-field functional MRI (fMRI) at 9.4T in awake marmosets to explore the patterns of brain activation elicited by visual stimuli looming toward or receding away from the monkey. We found that looming and receding visual stimuli activated a large cortical network in frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital cortex in areas involved in the analysis of motion, shape, identity and features of the objects. Looming stimuli strongly activated a network composed of portions of the pulvinar, superior colliculus, putamen, parietal, prefrontal and temporal cortical areas. These activations suggest the existence of a network that processes visual stimuli looming toward peripersonal space to predict the consequence of these stimuli. Together with previous studies in macaque monkeys, these findings indicate that this network is preserved across Old and New World primates.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations43
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroImageSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207