MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378515282 · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2023.1094226

Mnemonic representations in human lateral geniculate nucleus

2023· article· en· W4378515282 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Masih Rahmati, Clayton E. Curtis, Kartik K. Sreenivasan

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institutes of HealthNational Eye InstituteYork University
KeywordsLateral geniculate nucleusNeurosciencePsychologyMnemonicThalamusSaccadePopulationWorking memoryCognitionSpatial memoryVisual cortexCognitive psychologyEye movement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a growing appreciation for the role of the thalamus in high-level cognition. Motivated by findings that internal cognitive state drives activity in feedback layers of primary visual cortex (V1) that target the lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN), we investigated the role of LGN in working memory (WM). Specifically, we leveraged model-based neuroimaging approaches to test the hypothesis that human LGN encodes information about spatial locations temporarily encoded in WM. First, we localized and derived a detailed topographic organization in LGN that accords well with previous findings in humans and non-human primates. Next, we used models constructed on the spatial preferences of LGN populations in order to reconstruct spatial locations stored in WM as subjects performed modified memory-guided saccade tasks. We found that population LGN activity faithfully encoded the spatial locations held in memory in all subjects. Importantly, our tasks and models allowed us to dissociate the locations of retinal stimulation and the motor metrics of memory-guided saccades from the maintained spatial locations, thus confirming that human LGN represents true WM information. These findings add LGN to the growing list of subcortical regions involved in WM, and suggest a key pathway by which memories may influence incoming processing at the earliest levels of the visual hierarchy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.736

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Behavioral NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207