MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3048346533 · doi:10.1101/2020.08.10.244319

Oculomotor Target Selection is Cortically Mediated by Complex Objects

2020· preprint· en· W3048346533 on OpenAlexaff
Devin H. Kehoe, Jennifer Lewis, Mazyar Fallah

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsSaccadeEye movementVisual processingPsychologyGaze-contingency paradigmSaccadic maskingVisual searchNeuroscienceVisual perceptionFixation (population genetics)Visual ObjectsPerceptionCommunicationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Successful oculomotor target selection often requires discriminating visual features but it remains contentious whether oculomotor substrates encoding saccade vectors functionally contribute to this process. One possibility is that visual features are discriminated cortically and oculomotor modules select the object with the highest activation in the set of all preprocessed cortical object representations, while an alternative possibility is that oculomotor modules actively discriminate potential targets based on visual features. If the latter view is correct, these modules should not require input from specialized visual cortices encoding the task relevant features. We therefore examined whether the latency of visual onset responses elicited by abrupt distractor onsets is consistent with input from specialized visual cortices by non-invasively measuring human saccade metrics (saccade curvature, endpoint deviations, saccade frequency, error proportion) as a function of distractor processing time for novel, visually complex distractors that had to be discriminated from a target to guide saccades. Visual onset response latencies were ~110 ms, consistent with projections from anterior cortical sites specialized for object processing. Surprisingly, oculomotor visual onset responses encoded features, as we manipulated the visual similarity between targets and distractors and observed an increased visual onset response magnitude and duration when the distractor was highly similar to the target, which was not attributable to an inhibitory processing delay. Visual onset responses were dynamically modulated by executive function, as these responses were anticipatorily extinguished over the time course of the experiment. As expected, the latency of distractor-related inhibition was modulated by the behavioral relevance of the distractor. Significance Statement We provide novel insights into the role of the oculomotor system in saccadic target selection by challenging the convention that neural substrates that encode oculomotor vectors functionally contribute to target discrimination. Our data show that the oculomotor system selects a winner from amongst the preprocessed object representations output from specialized visual cortices as supposed to discriminating visual features locally. We also challenge the convention that oculomotor visual onset responses are feature-invariant, as they encoded task-relevance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicVisual perception and processing mechanisms→French-language works237,207→