6 Step Planning

[Sabina Kehler]

Thesite is secure.

The ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

The dorsal premotor cortex (PMd) plays an essential role in visually guided goal-directed motor behavior. Although there are several planning processes for achieving goal-directed behavior, the separate neural processes are largely unknown. Here, we created a new visuo-goal task to investigate the step-by-step planning processes for visuomotor and visuo-goal behavior in humans. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we found activation in different portions of the bilateral PMd during each processing step. In particular, the activated area for rule-based visuomotor and visuo-goal mapping was located at the ventrorostral portion of the bilateral PMd, that for action plan specification was at the dorsocaudal portion of the left PMd, that for transformation was at the rostral portion of the left PMd, and that for action preparation was at the caudal portion of the bilateral PMd. Thus, the left PMd was involved throughout all of the processes, but the right PMd was involved only in rule-based visuomotor and visuo-goal mapping and action preparation. The locations related to each process were generally spatially separated from each other, but they overlapped partially. These findings revealed that there are functional subregions in the bilateral PMd in humans and these subregions form a functional gradient to achieve goal-directed behavior.

The new zoning code includes a new process that ensures applicants have early assistance from staff and continued support as they work through the planning process. Early collaboration creates a more consistent and smooth process for the applicant and staff to reduce costly changes and ensure best results for everyone.Click through each step of the process below for specific information. Planning Process Overview Getting Started Planning Process Overview Step 1 - Start for All Applicants Planning Process Overview Step 2 - Type Dependent Planning Process Overview Step 3 - Review and Decision Getting StartedEvery project starts with an idea. Once the idea starts to formulate, it's a good time to reach out to the planning department to get the support needed to start the project out on the best foot, with the best information. No formalized documentation is required to begin, in fact it is preferred to initiate the first step beforehand.Step 1 - Start for All ApplicantsThis process is designed to provide focused support in the early phases of a project to help ensure that the applicant has the resources and guidance from the beginning. All applicants start with the same two steps, Early Assistance and Concept Review. Early AssistanceA city planner will aid in the very early stages of your concept to get started with the most current information and support. All applications begin with Early Assistance.

By the time Concept Review is completed, the planning team will have formulated an understanding of the project and categorized the project as Administrative or Hearing-Level based on the specific applications that will be required for the project. These project types determine the next steps the applicant will take.Following Early Assistance and Concept Review, some Administrative projects will proceed to submitting the application, which will be made available to the applicant. Hearing-level projects require a few more steps before submittal.Below are some of the most common applications in each group but is not an exhaustive list. For more information on other applications, please contact the Planning Department.Administrative Applications - Floodplain PermitHome Occupation Permit for Family Daycare HomeRecord of SurveySign Permit for On-Premise SignTemporary Sign PermitTemporary Use PermitZoning CertificateZoning Compliance ReviewHearing-Level Applications - Annexation of Land and Related Zoning Map AmendmentCertificate of Appropriateness - MajorCode Adoption or AmendmentComprehensive Plan Adoption or AmendmentDesign Review - MajorDevelopment Agreement or ModificationFloodplain VarianceHillside Development Permit - Category 3Major Historic Preservation ActionsResidential Small Lot Approval - MajorSubdivision PlatVarianceStep 2 - Determined by Project Type Submit ApplicationsMost administrative applications are submitted at this stage and all fees are paid. Applications that are processed administratively, but could benefit from review by other agencies, may require Interdepartmental Review prior to submittal.

Hearing-level applications have a few additional review steps based on the complexity and scale of these projects. They require a Neighborhood Review and an Interdepartmental Review before proceeding to submittal.Neighborhood ReviewInterdepartmental ReviewSubmit ApplicationsStep 3 - Review and Decision Administrative ReviewAdministrative applications are reviewed by staff and have a Planning Director approval.

Hearing-level applications require review in front of one or more hearing bodies for a recommendation or a decision. The hearing bodies include the Hearing Examiner, Historic Preservation Commission, Design Review Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and Boise City Council.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Actively deciding where to direct our eyes is an essential ability in fundamental tasks, which rely on acquiring visual information for survival such as gathering food, avoiding predators, making tools, and social interaction. As we can only perceive a small proportion of our surroundings at any moment in time due to the spatial distribution of our retinal receptor cells1, we are constantly forced to actively target our visual apparatus towards relevant parts of the visual scene using eye movements2. Thus, vision is a sequential process of active decisions3. Perceptually, these decisions have been characterized in terms of targeting gaze towards locations that are most salient4, maximizing knowledge about the environment5,6,7, or optimizing performance in the ongoing task8,9,10,11,12. Much less research has investigated, how the visual system selects sequential decisions in these tasks.

Surprisingly, all of the reviewed computational models for eye movement selection are myopic, i.e. they choose actions that maximize the immediate reward8,10,11,12,13,14,18,19, either by moving gaze to the currently most likely target or to the target that promises to reveal the most likely target after a single next eye movement. In this case, the horizon equals to one as only the next reward is used for action selection. In practice, the problem of delayed rewards is circumvented by either investigating only single saccades or by choosing tasks where both policies, myopic and planned, may lead to similar solutions. To our knowledge, there exist neither computational models nor empirical data investigating whether humans are capable of planning eye movements. This is even more surprising considering the results of behavioral investigations which have interpreted a variety of empirical findings as evidence for human gaze planning20,21,22,23. These studies have shown that the latency of the first saccade was higher for longer sequences of saccades21. Also, discrimination performance was enhanced at multiple locations within an instructed sequence of saccades22. Furthermore, if an eye movement sequence was interrupted by additional information midway the execution of the second saccade was delayed23. While these results suggest that a scanpath of at least two saccades is internally prepared before execution, it is unclear whether multiple future fixation locations are jointly chosen to maximize performance in a task, which is a computational signature of planning.

For the short condition, a single fixation location (x1, y1) was selected. In this case, both strategies lead to the same action, because for both models only the consequences of a single gaze shift need to be taken into account. Hence, the maximal horizon of the sequence is 1, leading to:

For the long condition, a sequence of two fixation locations (x1, y1, x2, y2) was chosen resulting in a maximum horizon of two. In this case, the two strategies differ. First, the myopic observer uses the uncertainty of the current observation to select only the next gaze target such that the probability of detecting the location of the target will be maximal after each single saccade. Thus, the myopic observer sequentially chooses the fixation location with the maximum expected immediate reward resulting in the policy:

By contrast, the planning observer uses the uncertainty of the current observation to select the upcoming gaze targets such that the probability of detecting the location of the target is expected to be maximal after the sequence of two saccades. Thus, the planning observer incorporates the whole sequence in the selection of all actions:

Figure 2 illustrates the difference between the two computational strategies for the two conditions, i.e. the short search interval, allowing a single gaze shift, and the long search interval, allowing a maximum of two gaze shifts. The action selection for both the myopic and the planning observer for the long condition is shown in the right panel of Fig. 2a. Accordingly, three testable hypothesis can be derived from the computational models: H1: If eye movements are planned, we expect a difference in the location of the first fixation depending on the search interval for some stimuli. H2: We expect fixation locations to be better explained by the planning observer compared to the myopic observer. H3: The differences between the myopic and the planning observers also depend on the search shape, such that the gaze targets may coincide for the two models (Fig. 2b).

3a8082e126