Suppression without inhibition: how retinal computation contributes to saccadic suppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual perception remains stable across saccadic eye movements, despite the concurrent strongly disruptive visual flow. This stability is partially associated with a reduction in visual sensitivity, known as saccadic suppression, which already starts in the retina with reduced ganglion cell sensitivity. However, the retinal circuit mechanisms giving rise to such suppression remain unknown. Here, we describe these mechanisms using electrophysiology in mouse, pig, and macaque retina, 2-photon calcium imaging, computational modeling, and human psychophysics. We find that sequential stimuli, like those that naturally occur during saccades, trigger three independent suppressive mechanisms in the retina. The main mechanism is triggered by contrast-reversing sequential stimuli and originates within the receptive field center of ganglion cells. It does not involve inhibition or other known suppressive mechanisms like saturation or adaptation. Instead, it relies on temporal filtering of the inherently slow response of cone photoreceptors coupled with downstream nonlinearities. Two further mechanisms of suppression are present predominantly in ON ganglion cells and originate in the receptive field surround, highlighting another disparity between ON and OFF ganglion cells. The mechanisms uncovered here likely play a role in shaping the retinal output following eye movements and other natural viewing conditions where sequential stimulation is ubiquitous.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".