Missing terms for sacaddes and fixation

[h-mayorquin]

We are working with an automated annotation tool for behaviors in neuroscience. Reading the following paper:

Platt, M., Glimcher, P. Neural correlates of decision variables in parietal cortex. Nature 400, 233–238 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1038/22268

We can find the following description:

Here we examine whether a decision-theoretic model might reveal a link between the activity of area LIP neurons and the choices animals make in an oculomotor task. In the first experiment (experiment 1; Figs 1, 2), we monitored the activity of single intraparietal neurons while animals performed cued saccade trials, in which a change in the colour of a centrally located fixation stimulus instructed subjects to make one of two possible eye movement responses in order to receive a juice reward. Before this stimulus changed colour, the rewarded movement was ambiguous. In successive blocks of trials, we varied either the volume of juice delivered for each instructed response (expected gain) or the probability that each possible response would be instructed (outcome probability), while holding all sensory signals and motorrelated variables constant. This allowed us to test whether any portion of the variation in area LIP spike rates observed under these conditions was correlated with variations in the decision variables we manipulated

There are two behaviors that I see described in this text that I was not able to find in the ontology. Saccades and fixation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixation_(visual)

Would it make sense to add this?

I am also unclear what how saccades and fixation would relate to the following terms:

id: NBO:0000444
name: eye movement

id: NBO:0000315
name: optokinetic behavior

It seems that both sacades and fixation probably are both an eye movement and an optokinetic behavior. On the other hand, the term physiologic nystagmus (NBO:0000417) only has an "is_a" relationship with vestibulo-ocular reflex so maybe these had a different purpose originally.

Thanks in advance for your help,

[h-mayorquin]

Maybe related to this:
#12

[DitchingIt]

Really pleased to see all your interest @h-mayorquin . I want there to be a significant rewrite of definitions, a rethink of relations, reliance on sourcing, and the addition of useful new labels in the NBO. How might you suggest tackling all the questions you raise in this issue? (We are happy for terms to have multiple parents by the way; anything historical is open to review; please try to follow the style sheet #122 or argue for them to be amended there.)

[DitchingIt]

See #124 for an explanation of why I am not following this up, but I will leave this issue open in case someone else wants to.