Local field potentials are local events in the mouse auditory cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local field potentials (LFPs) and spikes (SPKs) sampled at the thalamocortical recipient layers represent the inputs from the thalamus and outputs to other layers. Previous studies have shown that SPK-constructed receptive fields (RFSPK) of cortical neurons are much smaller than LFP-constructed RFs (RFLFP). The difference in cortical RFLFP and RFSPK is therefore a plausible indication of local networking. The presence of a boarder RFLFP appears due to contamination, to some degree, from remote sites. Our studies of the mouse primary auditory cortex show that the best frequencies and minimum thresholds of RFSPK and RFLFP were similar. We also observed that the RFLFP area was only slightly larger than the RFSPK area, a very different finding from previous reports. The bandwidth of RFLFP was slightly broader than that of RFSPK at all levels. These data do not support the explanation that bioelectrical signals from distant sites impact on cortical LFP through volume conduction. That the cortical LFP represents a local event is further supported by comparisons of RFSPK and RFLFP after cortical inhibition by muscimol and cortical disinhibition by bicuculine. We conclude that the difference between RFSPK (output of cortical neurons) and RFLFP (input of cortical neurons) results from intracortical processing, including cortical lateral inhibition and excitation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".