MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414086066 · doi:10.1126/science.adu9828

Visual objects refine head direction coding

2025· article· en· W4414086066 on OpenAlexaff
Dominique Siegenthaler, Henry Denny, Sofía Skromne Carrasco, Daniel Levenstein, Adrien Peyrache, Stuart Trenholm, Émilie Macé

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual cortexCoding (social sciences)LimitingNeural codingElectrophysiologyVisual perceptionN2pcVisual ObjectsObject (grammar)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animals use visual objects to guide navigation-related behaviors. However, visual object-preferring areas have yet to be described in the mouse brain, limiting our understanding of how visual objects affect spatial navigation system processing. Using functional ultrasound imaging, we identified brain areas that were preferentially activated by images of objects compared with their scrambled versions. Whereas visual cortex did not show a preference, areas associated with spatial navigation were preferentially activated by visual objects. Electrophysiological recordings in postsubiculum, the cortical head direction (HD) system hub, confirmed a preference for visual objects in both HD cells and fast-spiking interneurons. In freely moving animals, visual objects increased firing rates of HD cells aligned with a visual object but decreased activity in HD cells coding for other directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207