Faculty Opinions recommendation of Effects of optic flow in motor cortex and area 7a.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moving visual stimuli were presented to behaving monkeys who fixated their eyes and did not move their arm. The stimuli consisted of random dots moving coherently in eight different kinds of motion (right, left, up, downward, expansion, contraction, clockwise, and counterclockwise) and were presented in 25 square patches on a liquid crystal display projection screen. Neuronal activity in the arm area of the motor cortex and area 7a was significantly influenced by the visual stimulation, as assessed using an ANOVA. The percentage of cells with a statistically significant effect of visual stimulation was 3 times greater in area 7a (370/587, 63%) than in motor cortex (148/693, 21.4%). With respect to stimulus properties, its location and kind of motion had differential effects on cell activity in the two areas. Specifically, the percentage of cells with a significant stimulus location effect was approximately 2.5 times higher in area 7a (311/370, 84%) than in motor cortex (48/148, 32.4%), whereas the percentage of cells with a significant stimulus motion effect was approximately 2 times higher in the motor cortex (79/148, 53.4%) than in area 7a (102/370, 27.6%). We also assessed the selectivity of responses to particular stimulus motions using a Poisson train analysis and determined the percentage of cells that showed activation in only one stimulus condition. This percentage was 2 times higher in the motor cortex (73.7%) than in area 7a (37.7%). Of all kinds of stimulus motion tested, responses to expanding optic flow were the strongest in both cortical areas. Finally, we compared the activation of motor cortical cells during visual stimulation to that observed during force exertion in a center --> out task. Of 514 cells analyzed for both the motor and visual tasks, 388 (75.5%) showed a significant relation to either or both tasks, as follows: 284/388 (73.2%) cells showed a significant relation only to the motor task, 27/388 (7%) cells showed a significant relation only to the visual task, whereas the remaining 77/388 (19.8%) cells showed significant relations to both tasks. Therefore a total of 361/514 (70.2%) cells were related to the motor task and 104/514 (20.2%) were related to the visual task. Finally, with respect to receptive fields (RFs), there was no clear visual receptive field structure in the motor cortical neuronal responses, in contrast to area 7a where RFs were present and could be modulated by the type of optic flow stimulus. PMID: 11600652 Funding information This work was supported by: NIMH NIH HHS, United States Grant ID: MH-48185
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.498 | 0.238 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".