MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corticofugal modulation of midbrain sound processing in the house mouse

2002· article· en· W1994455760 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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