MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385334833 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0078-23.2023

Done in 65 ms: Express Visuomotor Responses in Upper Limb Muscles in Rhesus Macaques

2023· article· en· W4385334833 on OpenAlexafffund
Aaron L. Cecala, Rebecca A. Kozak, J. Andrew Pruszynski, Brian D. Corneil

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMotor Control and Adaptation
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of OntarioCanada First Research Excellence FundCanada Research ChairsGovernment of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomyPsychologyBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How rapidly can the brain transform vision into action? Work in humans has established that the transformation for visually-guided reaching can be remarkably rapid, with the first phase of upper limb muscle recruitment, the express visuomotor response, beginning within less than 100 ms of visual target presentation. Such short-latency responses limit the opportunities for extensive cortical processing, leading to the hypothesis that they are generated via the subcortical tecto-reticulo-spinal pathway. Here, we examine whether nonhuman primates (NHPs) exhibit express visuomotor responses. Two male macaques made visually-guided reaches in a behavioral paradigm known to elicit express visuomotor responses in humans, while we acquired intramuscular recordings from the deltoid muscle. Across several variants of this paradigm, express visuomotor responses began within 65 ms (range: 48-91 ms) of target presentation. Although the timing of the express visuomotor response did not co-vary with reaction time, larger express visuomotor responses tended to precede shorter latency reaches. Further, we observed that the magnitude of the express visuomotor response could be muted by contextual context, although this effect was quite variable. Overall, the response properties in NHPs resemble those in humans. Our results establish a new benchmark for visuomotor transformations underlying visually-guided reaches, setting the stage for experiments that can directly compare the role of cortical and subcortical areas in reaching when time is of the essence.

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)0.002
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 score0.915
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuroSame topicMotor Control and AdaptationFrench-language works237,207