MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7030684274

Neural Correlates of Saccade Target Selection and Programming in Superior Colliculus

2018· dissertation· en· W7030684274 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaccadeSuperior colliculusStimulus (psychology)PerceptionNeural correlates of consciousnessSensory systemCoding (social sciences)Decision processSelection (genetic algorithm)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decision-making process involves sequential stages of sensory processing, perceptual selection of a target for the behavior, preparation of an action, and execution of that action. Superior colliculus is at the center of a network which integrates the sensory information into evidence towards decisions about whether, to where and when a saccade should be made, and is therefore a suitable model to explore different aspects of these stages. This work explores the dynamics of interactions of SC populations during a decision that involves selection of a particular stimulus among the alternative options as the target for a future saccade. I show that these interactions evolve in time along with the requirements of the task, and the patterns of this evolution are different among neurons from the same or different SC populations. I further explore the impact of correlations within the activity rates of these neurons on the efficiency of coding this decision variable. I show that while the variability in pairs of neurons seems to increase the available information about the encoded target for the saccade, they decrease the performance of two biologically plausible decoders over simulated large populations. Finally, I explore the role of neuros in intermediate layers of SC in saccade production in a task where the subjects anticipate the possibility of withholding a programmed saccade. I show that while an accumulation of evidence towards a decision to execute a saccade appears to happen in SC, this activity pattern cannot fully account for the behavior of the subject. SC should be mainly considered as the threshold unit that transfers this decision variable from an accumulation unit elsewhere in the brain, such as the frontal eye fields, to the execution unit in the brainstem. This work confirms previous findings on the role of SC in two perceptual and executive stages of a decision process and provides additional insights on the details of how these roles are implemented.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→