Neural integration of egocentric and allocentric visual cues in the gaze system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental question in neuroscience is how the brain integrates egocentric (body-centered) and allocentric (landmark-centered) visual cues, but for many years this question was ignored in sensorimotor studies. This changed in recent behavioral experiments, but the underlying physiology of ego/allocentric integration remained largely unstudied. The specific goal of this review is to explain how prefrontal neurons integrate eye-centered and landmark-centered visual codes for optimal gaze behavior. First, we briefly review the whole brain/behavioral mechanisms for ego/allocentric integration in the human and summarize egocentric coding mechanisms in the primate gaze system. We then focus in more depth on cellular mechanisms for ego/allocentric coding in the frontal and supplementary eye fields. We first explain how prefrontal visual responses integrate eye-centered target and landmark codes to produce a transformation toward landmark-centered coordinates. Next, we describe what happens when a landmark shifts during the delay between seeing and acquiring a remembered target, initially resulting in independently coexisting ego/allocentric memory codes. We then describe how these codes are reintegrated in the motor burst for the gaze shift. Deep network simulations suggest that these properties emerge spontaneously for optimal gaze behavior. Finally, we synthesize these observations and relate them to normal brain function through a simplified conceptual model. Together, these results show that integration of visuospatial features continues well beyond visual cortex and suggest a general cellular mechanism for goal-directed visual 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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".