The relative sizes of nuclei in the oculomotor complex vary by order and behaviour in birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Eye movements are a critical component of visually guided behaviors, allowing organisms to scan the environment and bring stimuli of interest to regions of acuity in the retina. Although the control and modulation of eye movements by cranial nerve nuclei are highly conserved across vertebrates, species variation in visually guided behavior and eye morphology could lead to variation in the size of oculomotor nuclei. Here, we test for differences in the size and neuron numbers of the oculomotor nuclei among birds that vary in behavior and eye morphology. Using unbiased stereology, we measured the volumes and numbers of neurons of the oculomotor (nIII), trochlear (nIV), abducens (nVI), and Edinger-Westphal (EW) nuclei across 71 bird species and analyzed that with phylogeny-informed statistics. Owls had relatively smaller nIII, nIV, nVI and EW nuclei than other birds, which reflects their limited degrees of eye movements. In contrast, nVI was relatively larger in falcons and hawks, likely reflecting how these predatory species must shift focus between the central and temporal foveae during foraging and prey capture. Unexpectedly, songbirds had an enlarged EW and relatively more nVI neurons, which might reflect accommodation and horizontal eye movements. Finally, the one merganser we measured also has an enlarged EW, which is associated with the high accommodative power needed for pursuit diving. Overall, these differences reflect species and clade level variation in behaviour, but more data is needed on eye movements in birds across species to better understand the relationships among behaviour, retinal anatomy, and brain anatomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".