MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404134410 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0301-24.2024

Encoding of Global Visual Motion in the Avian Pretectum Shifts from a Bias for Temporal-to-Nasal Selectivity to Omnidirectional Excitation across Speeds

2024· article· en· W4404134410 on OpenAlexafffund
Suryadeep Dash, Vikram B. Baliga, Anthony B. Lapsansky, Douglas R. Wylie, Douglas L. Altshuler

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPretectal areaOmnidirectional antennaSelectivityExcitationPhysicsPsychologyBiologyNeuroscienceComputer scienceTelecommunicationsQuantum mechanicsMidbrain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pretectum of vertebrates contains neurons responsive to global visual motion. These signals are sent to the cerebellum, forming a subcortical pathway for processing optic flow. Global motion neurons exhibit selectivity for both direction and speed, but this is usually assessed by first determining direction preference at intermediate velocity (16–32°/s) and then assessing speed tuning at the preferred direction. A consequence of this approach is that it is unknown if and how direction preference changes with speed. We measured directional selectivity in 114 pretectal neurons from 44 zebra finches ( Taeniopygia guttata ) across spatial and temporal frequencies, corresponding to a speed range of 0.062–1,024°/s. Pretectal neurons were most responsive at 32–64°/s with lower activity as speed increased or decreased. At each speed, we determined if cells were directionally selective, bidirectionally selective, omnidirectionally responsive, or unmodulated. Notably, at 32°/s, 60% of the cells were directionally selective, and 28% were omnidirectionally responsive. In contrast, at 1,024°/s, 20% of the cells were directionally selective, and nearly half of the population was omnidirectionally responsive. Only 15% of the cells were omnidirectionally excited across most speeds. The remaining 85% of the cells had direction tuning that changed with speed. Collectively, these results indicate a shift from a bias for directional tuning at intermediate speeds of global visual motion to a bias for omnidirectional responses at faster speeds. These results suggest a potential role for the pretectum during flight by detecting unexpected drift or potential collisions, depending on the speed of the optic flow signal.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeNeuroSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207