MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408588402 · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0023-25.2025

A Preparatory Cranial Potential for Saccadic Eye Movements in Macaque Monkeys

2025· article· en· W4408588402 on OpenAlexaff
Steven P. Errington, Jeffrey D. Schall

Bibliographic record

VenueeNeuro · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsMacaqueSaccadic maskingEye movementNeurosciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Response preparation is accomplished by gradual accumulation in neural activity until a threshold is reached. In humans, such a preparatory signal, referred to as the lateralized readiness potential (LRP), can be observed in the EEG over sensorimotor cortical areas before execution of a voluntary movement. Although well described for manual movements, less is known about preparatory EEG potentials for saccadic eye movements in humans and nonhuman primates. Hence, we describe a LRP over the frontolateral cortex in macaque monkeys. Homologous to humans, we observed lateralized electrical potentials ramping before the execution of both rewarded and nonrewarded contralateral saccades. This potential parallels the neural spiking of saccadic movement neurons in the frontal eye field (FEF), suggesting that it may offer a noninvasive correlate of intracortical spiking activity. However, unlike neural spiking in the FEF, polarization in frontolateral channels did not distinguish between saccade generation and inhibition. These findings provide new insights into noninvasive electrophysiological signatures of saccadic preparation in nonhuman primates, highlighting the potential of EEG measures to bridge invasive neural recordings and noninvasive studies of eye movement control in humans.

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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.317 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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