MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414334576 · doi:10.1242/jeb.250488

Responses of a locust visual interneuron correlate with simple and compound object motion within the vertical plane

2025· article· en· W4414334576 on OpenAlexafffund
Zandra M. Santa Rita, Sinan Zhang, John R. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for InnovationUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsLoomingHorizontal planeEfference copyObject (grammar)Visual systemOrientation (vector space)Sensory cueMovement (music)Motion perception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Animals living in complex visual environments must contend with multiple visual cues that signal potential threats by detecting approaching objects and generating adaptive avoidance responses. One collision detection system in locusts is composed of the lobula giant movement detector (LGMD) and its postsynaptic partner, the descending contralateral movement detector (DCMD). Extensive work on this pathway has revealed that it is preferentially selective to visual stimuli generated by an approaching object (looming) and triggers avoidance behaviours such as jumping and flight steering. Recent work has shown that this pathway also responds characteristically to complex object motion that includes trajectory changes in the horizontal plane. To test the hypothesis that responses of this pathway correlate to motion in the vertical plane, we recorded from the DCMD while presenting combinations of simple looming as well as translation and transitions from and to looming. We found that the DCMD responses occurred earlier and were more robust for vertical translation in the lateral visual field, perpendicular to the centre of the eye. We also found strong correlations for the timing and firing rate as well as the duration and number of spikes of described phases of the response. These findings fit with our existing understanding of how this pathway conveys visual information to downstream elements initiating and controlling escape behaviours and provide further information on how this tractable system adds to our understanding of fundamental mechanisms that underly visually evoked behaviours.

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)0.000
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→