Integration of Eye-Centered and Landmark-Centered Codes in Frontal Eye Field Gaze Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The visual system is thought to separate egocentric and allocentric representations, but behavioral experiments show that these codes are optimally integrated to influence goal-directed movements. To test if frontal cortex participates in this integration, we recorded primate frontal eye field activity during a cue-conflict memory delay saccade task. To dissociate egocentric and allocentric coordinates, we surreptitiously shifted a visual landmark during the delay period, causing saccades to deviate by 37% in the same direction. To assess the cellular mechanisms, we fit neural response fields against an egocentric (eye-centered target-to-gaze) continuum, and an allocentric shift (eye-to-landmark-centered) continuum. Initial visual responses best-fit target position. Motor responses (after the landmark shift) predicted future gaze position but embedded within the motor code was a 29% shift toward allocentric coordinates. This shift appeared transiently in memory-related visuomotor activity, and then reappeared in motor activity before saccades. Notably, fits along the egocentric and allocentric shift continua were initially independent, but became correlated across neurons just before the motor burst. Overall, these results implicate frontal cortex in the integration of egocentric and allocentric visual information for goal-directed action, and demonstrate the cell-specific, temporal progression of signal multiplexing for this process in the gaze system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".