MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corticofugal modulation of midbrain sound processing in the house mouse

2002· article· en· W1994455760 on OpenAlexafffund
Jun Yan, Günter Ehret

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMidbrainInferior colliculusNeuroscienceSuperior colliculusAuditory cortexStimulationCortex (anatomy)Cerebral cortexInferior ColliculiNucleusBiologyCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An understanding of the neural mechanisms responsible for auditory information processing is incomplete without a careful examination of substantial descending pathways. This study focuses on the functional role of corticofugal projections. Our work with the house mouse reveals that the focal electrical stimulation of the primary auditory cortex leads to profound changes in auditory response properties in the central nucleus of the inferior colliculus of the midbrain. Cortical stimulation does not impact on the collicular best frequencies when the best frequencies of stimulated cortical neurons and recorded collicular neurons are similar. Rather, collicular best frequencies are shifted toward the stimulated cortical best frequencies when cortical and collicular frequencies are different. Such a shift is unrelated to the differences in minimum thresholds between cortical and collicular neurons. In addition to frequency-specific shifts in collicular best frequencies, cortical stimulation elevates collicular minimum thresholds and reduces both dynamic ranges and response magnitudes if cortical and collicular best frequencies are different. If cortical and collicular best frequencies are similar but minimum thresholds are different, collicular minimum thresholds are shifted toward the stimulated cortical thresholds; dynamic ranges and response magnitudes may either increase or decrease in this scenario. Our results suggest that the corticofugal adjustment has a centre-surround organization with regard to both cortical best frequencies and cortical minimum thresholds. The midbrain processing of sound components in the centre of cortical feedback is largely enhanced while processing in the surround is suppressed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations131
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207