Integration of landmark and saccade target signals in macaque frontal cortex visual responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual landmarks influence spatial cognition and behavior, but their influence on visual codes for action is poorly understood. Here, we test landmark influence on the visual response to saccade targets recorded from 312 frontal and 256 supplementary eye field neurons in rhesus macaques. Visual response fields are characterized by recording neural responses to various target-landmark combinations, and then we test against several candidate spatial models. Overall, frontal/supplementary eye fields response fields preferentially code either saccade targets (40%/40%) or landmarks (30%/4.5%) in gaze fixation-centered coordinates, but most cells show multiplexed target-landmark coding within intermediate reference frames (between fixation-centered and landmark-centered). Further, these coding schemes interact: neurons with near-equal target and landmark coding show the biggest shift from fixation-centered toward landmark-centered target coding. These data show that landmark information is preserved and influences target coding in prefrontal visual responses, likely to stabilize movement goals in the presence of noisy egocentric signals.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".