MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400974974 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0413-23.2024

Multiunit Frontal Eye Field Activity Codes the Visuomotor Transformation, But Not Gaze Prediction or Retrospective Target Memory, in a Delayed Saccade Task

2024· article· en· W4400974974 on OpenAlexafffund
Serah Seo, Vishal Bharmauria, Adrian Schütz, Xiaogang Yan, Hongying Wang, J. Douglas Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftCalifornia Department of Fish and Game
KeywordsSaccadeGazeEye movementTask (project management)Computer scienceSupplementary eye fieldFrontal eye fieldsTransformation (genetics)Field (mathematics)Artificial intelligencePsychologyCognitive psychologyMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Single-unit (SU) activity—action potentials isolated from one neuron—has traditionally been employed to relate neuronal activity to behavior. However, recent investigations have shown that multiunit (MU) activity—ensemble neural activity recorded within the vicinity of one microelectrode—may also contain accurate estimations of task-related neural population dynamics. Here, using an established model-fitting approach, we compared the spatial codes of SU response fields with corresponding MU response fields recorded from the frontal eye fields (FEFs) in head-unrestrained monkeys ( Macaca mulatta ) during a memory-guided saccade task. Overall, both SU and MU populations showed a simple visuomotor transformation: the visual response coded target-in-eye coordinates, transitioning progressively during the delay toward a future gaze-in-eye code in the saccade motor response. However, the SU population showed additional secondary codes, including a predictive gaze code in the visual response and retention of a target code in the motor response. Further, when SUs were separated into regular/fast spiking neurons, these cell types showed different spatial code progressions during the late delay period, only converging toward gaze coding during the final saccade motor response. Finally, reconstructing MU populations (by summing SU data within the same sites) failed to replicate either the SU or MU pattern. These results confirm the theoretical and practical potential of MU activity recordings as a biomarker for fundamental sensorimotor transformations (e.g., target-to-gaze coding in the oculomotor system), while also highlighting the importance of SU activity for coding more subtle (e.g., predictive/memory) aspects of sensorimotor behavior.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuroSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207