Behavioral Time Course of Microstimulation in Cortical Area MT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical stimulation of the brain is a valuable research tool and has shown therapeutic promise in the development of new sensory neural prosthetics. Despite its widespread use, we still do not fully understand how current passed through a microelectrode interacts with functioning neural circuits. Past behavioral studies have suggested that weak electrical stimulation (referred to as microstimulation) of sensory areas of cortex produces percepts that are similar to those generated by normal sensory stimuli. In contrast, electrophysiological studies using in vitro or anesthetized preparations have shown that neural activity produced by brief microstimulation is radically different and longer lasting than normal responses. To help reconcile these two aspects of microstimulation, we examined the temporal properties that microstimulation has on visual perception. We found that brief application of subthreshold microstimulation in the middle temporal (MT) area of visual cortex produced smaller and longer-lasting effects on motion perception compared with an equivalent visual stimulus. In agreement with past electrophysiological studies, a computer simulation reproduced our behavioral effects when the time course of a single microstimulation pulse was modeled with three components: an immediate fast strong excitatory component, followed by a weaker inhibitory component, and then followed by a long duration weak excitatory component. Overall, these results suggest the behavioral effects of microstimulation in our experiments were caused by the unique and long-lasting temporal effects microstimulation has on functioning cortical circuits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".