ライフサイエンスコーパス: opponent

1 solely consummatory aggression (biting of an opponent).

2 tort an unfair share of the payoffs from the opponent.

3 s of the previous interactions with the same opponent.

4 cts competed for the total reward with their opponent.

5 e predictable exploitation by their computer opponent.

6 thms based on the inferred strategies of the opponent.

7 s of unpleasantly hot (spicy) sauce to their opponent.

8 er's Dilemma game is played against the same opponent.

9 t' is the best response to any action by the opponent.

10 fighting ability but not the ability of its opponent.

11 history, as well as by the strategies of its opponent.

12 e and interactively competes against a human opponent.

13 pends on selecting actions that surprise the opponent.

14 ess while 2) remaining unpredictable for the opponent.

15 anges were associated with shifts to Trump's opponent.

16 , and the beliefs of each player about their opponent.

17 le aggression at a later time and with a new opponent.

18 lows weak networks to overcome the strongest opponent.

19 tractability and performance against single opponents.

20 ve game against two independent computerized opponents.

21 up could produce significant advantages over opponents.

22 of traits in the subpopulations of potential opponents.

23 strategically use the option to anger their opponents.

24 targets on a large touchscreen before their opponents.

25 e agents' beliefs about the actions of their opponents.

26 second fights against familiar or unfamiliar opponents.

27 i can respond to changes that occur in their opponents.

28 KOs to differentially attack male and female opponents.

29 ooperative behavior when playing trustworthy opponents.

30 emma with both trustworthy and untrustworthy opponents.

31 ision-making when competing with risk-averse opponents.

32 lunges, and won more fights against their AS opponents.

33 rative genotypes elicited most aggression in opponents.

34 ptive differentiation in the face of diverse opponents.

35 e strategies with a theory of mind for their opponents.

36 depending on the level of familiarity of the opponents.

37 ng to predict the next-period behavior of an opponent, a rational player must take an action this per

38 favouring the physical punishment of unfair opponents, a finding that echoes recent evidence for alt

39 Inspired by the influential opponent actor learning model, we demonstrate that, unde

40 ese effects are achieved by different, often opponent, adaptive mechanisms in males and females, with

41 Playing a computerized opponent adopting a mixed-strategy equilibrium, particip

42 y were re-paired with familiar or unfamiliar opponents after 30 min of separation.

43 wise games in a Swiss tournament which pairs opponents against those which have performed equally wel

44 First, the receptive fields were Double-Opponent, an organization of spatial and chromatic oppon

45 atial selectivity, into chromatically single-opponent and double-opponent groups.

46 tide keyed to a particular move by the human opponent and indicates a move by fluorescence signaling

47 Double-opponent and non-opponent cells' orientation selectiviti

48 increase the perception of similarity among opponents and (ii) efficient lowering of the similarity

49 Males fought either a real opponent, and a winner and a loser were identified, or t

50 Moreover, amifostine opponents argue that the evidence is insufficient to jus

51 t, the luminance channel has slow spectrally opponent as well as fast non-opponent inputs.

52 ed red-green (L-M) and blue-yellow (S-[L+M]) opponent axes.

53 e generated by stimuli that modulate the L-M opponent axis.

54 its influence on the effect of variations in opponent behavior unknown.

55 nges in brain activity during the viewing of opponents' behavior in regions whose involvement in soci

56 l prerequisites for the ability to integrate opponent beliefs into strategic choice, through system-l

57 tion of homeostatic energy utilization in an opponent, bivalent emotional control system.

58 we have characterized a population of color opponent (blue-ON) cells in recordings from the dorsal l

59 erous ZD strategies," that forgive defecting opponents but nonetheless dominate in evolving populatio

60 nly a player with a theory of mind about his opponent can do better, in which case Iterated Prisoner'

61 yer must take an action this period that the opponent can observe.

62 lear-cut because they can be associated with opponent categories (e.g., feminine male face).

63 eptive fields (0.5-0.7 degrees) than spatial-opponent cell centers (approximately 1 degree).

64 For each axis, opponent cell groups were found that increase firing whe

65 The M and S components of opponent cell receptive fields had approximately the sam

66 and konio-cellular LGN cells are of just two opponent-cell types, either differencing the L and M con

67 Many cone-opponent cells (48 of 83) were double-opponent, with cir

68 ition of S(o) input to that from the L and M opponent cells changes the chromatic appearance of all c

69 V1 double-opponent cells could be the neural basis of the influenc

70 In superior retina, the opponent cells had well-balanced M and S weights, while

71 he combined activities of single- and double-opponent cells in V1 are needed for the full repertoire

72 Opponent cells injected with Lucifer yellow restricted t

73 ped the cone inputs (L, M, and S) to 83 cone-opponent cells representing the central visual field of

74 Single-opponent cells responded well to color but weakly to lum

75 We also found non-opponent cells that responded weakly or not at all to pu

76 Double-opponent cells were approximately equally orientation se

77 The remaining cone-opponent cells were either spatially opponent in only on

78 Most double-opponent cells were orientation selective to pure color

79 Double-opponent and non-opponent cells' orientation selectivities were not contr

80 Cone-opponent cells, constituting approximately 10% of V1 cel

81 ea pig, we identified small numbers of color-opponent cells.

82 for fly photoreceptor outputs, with a color opponent center and broadband surround.

83 discriminable throughout the brain after the opponent changed, compared with when the same opponent w

84 across different environments, we identified opponent changes in activity levels of two major, nonove

85 tina, which lead to a large variety of color-opponent channels for transmission to the brain via reti

86 ns both inhibitory and excitatory fragments (opponent coding) were present in the same image.

87 tage in the visual system at which spatially opponent color calculations are made.

88 two cardinal chromatic axes that define cone-opponent color space [L vs M or S vs (L + M)], providing

89 e luminance dimension and along the two cone-opponent colour directions.

90 reen opponent parvocellular neurons received opponent cone input (L+M- or M+L-) that overlapped in sp

91 signals (+fM and +fL), and slow, spectrally opponent cone input signals (+sL and -sM).

92 e luminance pathway has slow (s), spectrally opponent cone inputs in addition to the expected fast (f

93 ubjects' strategies were highly dependent on opponent context in this game, a fact that was reflected

94 and velocity signals can be accounted for by opponent contributions from the two sides of the cerebel

95 If the opponent cooperates, you get R if you cooperate and T if

96 If the opponent defects, you get S if you cooperate and P if yo

97 brain may mediate the balance between these opponent defensive behaviors.

98 n aftereffect, the illusion of motion in the opponent direction across the finger pad.

99 ve reaction time task in which the purported opponent displays either an angry or a neutral facial ex

100 o DGEs) strongly decreased aggressiveness in opponents (due to IGEs).

101 PFC neurons encoded chosen value, they used opponent encoding schemes such that averaging the neuron

102 ip between his or her payoff and that of the opponent even when restricting his or her actions to mer

103 earn to predict the future behavior of their opponents (even approximately) no matter what learning r

104 ioners succeeded against each of their human opponents, extortion resulted in lower payoffs than gene

105 he brain transcriptome were observed in real opponent fighters, with losers displaying both a higher

106 ock-paper-scissors game against a videotaped opponent, freely choosing their movement on each trial a

107 , retaliate more often, and regularly defeat opponents from the nonselected parent Canton-S strain.

108 The opponent functions of SOX10 to maintain neural lineage p

109 ne are speculated to subserve motivationally opponent functions, but this hypothesis has not been dir

110 the small bistratified, "blue-yellow" color-opponent ganglion cell receives parallel ON-depolarizing

111 n color discrimination and may contact color-opponent ganglion cells.

112 ted neurons that were strongly chromatically opponent generally lacked suppressive surrounds.

113 id (GABA) is co-released with its functional opponent, glutamate, from long-range basal ganglia input

114 nto chromatically single-opponent and double-opponent groups.

115 One prominent and persistent opponent has been John Paley, who has sent a clear messa

116 Surprisingly, despite the fact that the opponent has infinitely many donation levels from which

117 gorithm that fixes potential weaknesses that opponents have identified in the blueprint strategy.

118 ical and subcortical regions emerges from an opponent hemispheric pattern of activation and deactivat

119 Here, we investigated how opponent identity affects human reinforcement learning d

120 cipants as a function of both game state and opponent identity.

121 They are direction-opponent if they are also inhibited by motion in the opp

122 a V1 as orthogonal gratings are perceptually opponent in biasing hallucinations.

123 o unilaterally set the expected payoff of an opponent in iterated plays of the Prisoner's Dilemma irr

124 ng cone-opponent cells were either spatially opponent in only one cone system (20 of 83) or lacked sp

125 ultiple contextual frames, such as different opponents in a game, decision making and its neural corr

126 eyespots) inhibits aggressive response from opponents, in part because it forms more rapidly in domi

127 Strong opponent inhibition enables recognition of stimulus orie

128 Hebbian development yields opponent inhibition: inhibition evoked by stimuli antico

129 wide-field RGC type receiving the same cone-opponent input as the small bistratified RGC, indicating

130 haracterized as chromatic, and the fast, non-opponent inputs (+fM and +fL) as achromatic, both contri

131 , the luminance channel has slow, spectrally opponent inputs in addition to the expected non-opponent

132 slow spectrally opponent as well as fast non-opponent inputs.

133 ts in addition to the expected fast (f), non-opponent inputs.

134 There was a treatment x opponent interaction in right anterior insula and dorsal

135 s center-surround receptive fields and color-opponent interactions.

136 When plants recognize potential opponents, invading pathogens, wound signals, or abiotic

137 gies and that competition with a risk-averse opponent is key for optimizing motor decision-making.

138 Post-conflict affiliation between opponents is further proposed to facilitate future coope

139 tential, RHP) and compares it to that of its opponent, is least understood.

140 Extreme opponents know the least, but think they know the most.

141 f an animal does not know the ability of its opponent, knowing its own ability results in a lower lev

142 N/yellow-OFF receptive field are larger than opponent L/M-cone contributions via outer diffuse bipola

143 ons via outer diffuse bipolar cells and that opponent L/M-cone signals are conveyed mainly by inner S

144 When the opponent looked angry, BLA-orbitofrontal coupling was re

145 Although these slow, spectrally opponent luminance inputs (+sM and -sL) would usually be

146 g stimuli, since stimuli equated for the non-opponent luminance mechanism (+fM and +fL) may still gen

147 he probability of a Hawk-Hawk fight when two opponents meet.

148 and somatosensory cortices of monkeys is the opponent model of rate coding by two distinct population

149 Simulations of opponent models suggest that direction opponency in firs

150 These findings indicate an apparently 'opponent' modulation of premature responses by NE and DA

151 normalizing a weighted population vector of opponent motion responses; normalization comes from neur

152 tion response was decoded by (1) creating an opponent motion signal for each neuron by treating its p

153 An early opponent motion signal optimally conveyed by the S-cone

154 anisms (MST-MT feedback and disinhibition of opponent motion signals in MT) to explain existing data,

155 nd (2) computing the vector average of these opponent motion signals.

156 on that implements a vector average based on opponent motion.

157 y and chemical aversive stimuli, as well as "opponent" motivational states induced by removal of sust

158 ere exposed to a group-housed, nonaggressive opponent (NAO) for 5 min in a neutral cage arena.

159 negative coupling indicating competitive or opponent network dynamics.

160 esent time-varying signals through these two opponent neuronal populations.

161 t pertains to light spectra, and that double-opponent neurons in early-level vision evolve to serve t

162 tion in bees indicates a diversity of colour opponent neurons in the visual optic ganglia that signif

163 cuits can combine signals from bidirectional opponent neurons to construct sensitive and robust neura

164 hes are thought to contain unoriented, color-opponent neurons.

165 R1-R6, qualifying them to function as color-opponent neurons.

166 ficacy study, and Jens Overgaard, a vehement opponent of amifostine therapy, provide thought-provokin

167 ta-catenin interaction partner and signaling opponent of other PKC isoforms in podocytes.

168 iovascular screening program, proponents and opponents of ECG screening have been busily debating.

169 Opponents of outpatient commitment argue that its coerci

170 Opponents of the decision prefer cotesting, as this appr

171 We find that, contrary to concerns voiced by opponents of the law, AB60 has had no discernible short-

172 ctions, an individual's ability to combat an opponent often improves with experience--for example, by

173 Opponents, on the other hand, are embedded in a looser f

174 onent inputs in addition to the expected non-opponent ones.

175 f fight outcome rather than just on self- or opponent-only assessment of fighting ability.

176 ndent of pheromonal input, gonadal hormones, opponents, or social context.

177 Red-green opponent parvocellular neurons received opponent cone in

178 Conversely, non-opponent parvocellular neurons showed the opposite tende

179 ganglion cell level, creating parallel color opponent pathways to the central visual system.

180 ructure of basal ganglia, is composed of two opponent pathways, direct and indirect, thought to selec

181 within the retinal circuitry to create color-opponent pathways.

182 ction when players are uncertain about their opponents' payoff functions.

183 humans were also initially uninformed about opponent payoffs and could not communicate verbally.

184 , which was unexpected given that wavelength-opponent Pbeta ganglion cells are far more susceptible t

185 opponents when anger negatively affects the opponents' performances.

186 center (about 4.5 degrees ) is surrounded by opponent periphery.

187 displacements, and these JONs subdivide into opponent populations that prefer push or pull displaceme

188 both analgesic signaling and a compensatory opponent process that generates endogenous opioid depend

189 n elevated-an interpretation consistent with opponent process theories of addiction.

190 Opponent process theory predicts that the first step in

191 ing effects have dissipated, consistent with opponent process theory, but the neural mechanisms invol

192 the prime colors and a simplified version of opponent process theory.

193 of relief closely follows the predictions of opponent process theory.

194 ine circuitry, providing a mechanism for the opponent process view of withdrawal.

195 ations include quantitative estimates of the opponent process weights needed to transform cone activa

196 Using these opponent process weights, the Munsell position of specif

197 This dual coding has parallels to 'opponent process' theories in psychology and promotes a

198 Counteradaptive processes, such as opponent process, that are part of the normal homeostati

199 We found that the macaque pACC has an opponent process-like organization of neurons representi

200 y distort cell-to-cell signalling, revealing opponent processes that may exist in individual cell typ

201 hese plots have implications for theories of opponent processes.

202 color components, thus concurring with color-opponent processing.

203 lization also limits the need to mobilize an opponent punishment learning system.

204 by changing a simple stimulus (O(2)) for two opponent reactions, namely, oxidative and protodecarboxy

205 naptic pathways that create S versus LM cone-opponent receptive field structure remain controversial.

206 lay a rare, S-Off, (L + M)-On type of colour-opponent receptive field.

207 n of synaptic inputs, which generate a color-opponent receptive field.

208 larger than the center diameter of non-color opponent receptive fields at any eccentricity.

209 eatments with reduced discounting when their opponent reciprocates, but their levels of cooperation d

210 used spatially homogeneous isoluminant color opponent (red/green, blue/yellow) and hue versus achroma

211 on of cells (<10%) that exhibited spectrally opponent responses along the S-M axis.

212 detecting edges and generating chromatically opponent responses in colour vision.

213 M5 ipRGCs were recently reported to exhibit opponent responses to different wavelengths of light (co

214 nd one of the lateral accessory lobes showed opponent responses to moving visual stimuli.

215 alled JAMB (J-RGC), was found to have colour-opponent responses, OFF to ultraviolet (UV) light and ON

216 escribe a subset of cells that exhibit color opponent responses.

217 Painful events are suggested to elicit two opponent responses: a negatively valenced and a positive

218 types that were probably served by chromatic-opponent retinal circuits.

219 We conclude that the opponent S-ON and LM-OFF responses originate from the ex

220 ven when there was no need to counteract the opponent's actions.

221 calls according to both their own and their opponent's attributes.

222 imitation depended on the visibility of the opponent's behavior.

223 heory predicts that animals should assess an opponent's condition relative to their own prior to esca

224 inal change in direction to moments when the opponent's counter-strategy was weaker, while lower-scor

225 was achieved by a non-linear influence of an opponent's decisions on a subject's decisions.

226 ing two conflicting goals: 1) exploiting the opponent's deviations from randomness while 2) remaining

227 set the ratio between the player's and their opponent's expected payoff (extortionate strategies).

228 EEG activity reflected information about the opponent's global and local strategy, and predicted upco

229 eir movement on each trial and observing the opponent's hand movement after a short delay.

230 rease in scent-marking and aggression in the opponent's home cage.

231 ait scores, and how being informed about the opponent's identity influenced cooperative behaviour.

232 of mimicry and imitation, the expectation of opponent's mimicry and the reliance on similarity indice

233 inear relationship between her score and her opponent's score, and thus to achieve an unusual degree

234 l only knows its own size (or only knows its opponent's size).

235 versary requires the ability to mentalize an opponent's state of mind to anticipate his/her future be

236 f the Prisoner's Dilemma irrespective of the opponent's strategy (coercive strategies), or else to se

237 be generated based on representations of the opponent's strategy and choice history (model-based coun

238 ills such as anticipating and countering the opponent's strategy and making effective decisions about

239 ate the impact of their own actions on their opponent's strategy.

240 se activity reflects the anticipation of the opponent's yet unknown choice, which may be important in

241 terior cingulate that selectively predict an opponent's yet unknown decision to invest in their commo

242 At each play, you and your opponent, say the mathematician John vonNeumann, each la

243 nals correlated with a behavioral measure of opponent-selective reinforcement learning.

244 r cingulate and right lingual regions, where opponent-selective reinforcement signals correlated with

245 These opponent-selective reinforcement signals were particular

246 hin a pair of related global patterns (e.g., opponent shapes and symmetric patterns), and during such

247 pment of reconciliation--affiliation between opponents shortly after a fight--because it influenceswh

248 the primate retina carry a major blue-yellow opponent signal to the brain.

249 Importantly, the spectrally opponent signals (+sL and -sM) contribute to flicker nul

250 (+fM and +fL) may still generate spectrally opponent signals (+sM and +sL).

251 Importantly, these opponent signals allow responses in posterior regions to

252 In many species, these color opponent signals arise as early as photoreceptor termina

253 bine the information encoded in these colour-opponent signals to reconstruct the full range of percei

254 uce "red-green" and "blue-yellow" spectrally opponent signals.

255 ural substrate for competition between these opponent social behaviours.

256 The results provide evidence that opponent social categories coactivate in face-processing

257 tly encountered, one ON and one OFF, had non-opponent spectral sensitivity, relatively high response

258 The tight spatial regulation of opponent splice variants helps ensure high-fidelity tran

259 l column are predicted to be those shared by opponent stimulus pairs; this contrasts with the common

260 and relative similarity outperforms all the opponent strategies it was tested against, pushes noncoo

261 e optimal given his or her prediction of the opponents' strategies.

262 d in the receptive fields as oriented Double-Opponent subregions.

263 roperties of motion sensors are the key: the opponent subtraction of two oppositely tuned stages that

264 the absence of reconciliation between former opponents, suggesting that actors are sensitive to the c

265 ed aggression toward smaller non-threatening opponents, suggesting that males with low 5-HT are more

266 d reflected integration of S-cone inputs via opponent, summing, and intermediate configurations.

267 range of preferred directions, strong motion opponent suppression and a tuned normalization that may

268 Our successful models predict that motion-opponent suppression is the key mechanism to account for

269 tion sensitivity with dichoptic plaids, that opponent suppression precedes binocular integration, and

270 ion precedes binocular integration, and that opponent suppression will be stronger in inputs to patte

271 nnections to bipolar cells then set up color-opponent synaptic layers in the inner retina, which lead

272 e-ON cells are part of a "blue-yellow" color opponent system that is the evolutionary homolog of the

273 gested that dopamine and serotonin represent opponent systems respectively driving reward and punishm

274 by parallel, anatomically segregated colour-opponent systems, to be combined at a later stage of the

275 general framework for generating adversarial opponents that can shape the choices of individuals in p

276 d by humans against two independent computer opponents that were randomly interleaved.

277 There are two opponent theories that provide an explanation for the me

278 nal temperature are encoded by bidirectional opponent thermoreceptor cells: some cells are excited by

279 This observation may cause the opponent to alter his next-period behavior, thus invalid

280 Evolutionary conflicts cause opponents to push increasingly hard and in opposite dire

281 f a strategy which uses reputation about its opponents to regulate its behavior.

282 it was tested against, pushes noncooperative opponents toward extinction, and promotes the developmen

283 ly and thereby establish a "red-green, color-opponent" visual pathway.

284 certain retinal ganglion cells have 'colour-opponent' visual responses-excited by light of one colou

285 aviours in those players who were told their opponent was another fellow human, compared to those who

286 When an opponent was not kin, agents evolved strategies that wer

287 pponent changed, compared with when the same opponent was repeated.

288 ion with trustworthy, but not untrustworthy, opponents was enhanced following MDMA but not placebo (r

289 tching-pennies game with simulated and human opponents we found that people toggle between these two

290 ns competed against both real and artificial opponents, we show that it is possible to quantify the i

291 Opponents were anonymised but of known seniority.

292 ticular, they are more likely to anger their opponents when anger negatively affects the opponents' p

293 ck-paper-scissors games against computerized opponents while being scanned using fMRI.

294 ehaviour, such that they empathize with fair opponents while favouring the physical punishment of unf

295 ed, participants played repeated rounds with opponents who differed in levels of cooperation.

296 All males that viewed an opponent with eyespots painted black became subordinate

297 In contrast, males that viewed opponents with hidden eyespots (painted green) became do

298 y cone-opponent cells (48 of 83) were double-opponent, with circular receptive-field centers and cres

299 pping allows individuals to assess potential opponents without personal risk.

300 strategies can (i) deterministically set her opponent Y's score, independently of his strategy or res