Reciprocal Modulatory Influences between Tonotopic and Nontonotopic Cortical Fields in the Cat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Functional and anatomical studies suggest that acoustic signals are processed hierarchically in auditory cortex. Although most regions of acoustically responsive cortex are not tonotopically organized, all previous electrophysiological investigations of interfield interactions have only examined tonotopically represented areas. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the functional interactions between tonotopically and nontonotopically organized fields in auditory cortex. We accomplished this goal by examining the bidirectional contributions between the cochleotopically organized primary auditory cortex (A1) and the noncochleotopically organized second auditory field (A2). Multiunit acute recording procedures in combination with reversible cooling deactivation techniques were used in eight mature cats. The synaptic activity of A1 or A2 was suppressed while the neuronal response to tonal stimuli of the noninactivated area (A1 or A2) was measured. Response strength, neuronal threshold, receptive field bandwidths, and latency measures were collected at each recorded site before, during, and after cooling deactivation epochs. Our analysis revealed comparable changes in A1 and A2 neuronal response properties. Specifically, significant decreases in neuronal response strength, increases in neuronal threshold, and shortening of response latency were found in both fields during periods of cooling deactivation. The weak anatomical connections between the two fields investigated make these findings unexpected. Furthermore, the observed neuronal changes suggest a model of corticocortical interaction among auditory fields in which neither differences in the magnitude of anatomical projections nor cortical representation of sensory stimuli are reliable determinants of modulatory functions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".