Multiunit Frontal Eye Field Activity Codes the Visuomotor Transformation, But Not Gaze Prediction or Retrospective Target Memory, in a Delayed Saccade Task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".