MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Angular Tuning Bias of Vibrissa-Responsive Cells in the Paralemniscal Pathway

2006· article· en· W2027171920 on OpenAlexaff
Takahiro Furuta, Kouichi Nakamura, Martin Deschênes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersKyoto University Foundation
KeywordsNeuroscienceBrainstemReceptive fieldThalamusBiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most salient features of primary vibrissal afferents is their sensitivity to the direction in which the vibrissae move. Directional sensitivity is also well conserved in brainstem, thalamic, and cortical neurons of the lemniscal pathway, indicating that this property plays a key role in the organization of the vibrissal system. Here, we show that directional tuning is also a fundamental feature of second-order interpolaris neurons that give rise to the paralemniscal pathway. Quantitative assessment of responses to vibrissa deflection revealed an anisotropic organization of receptive fields with regard to topography, response magnitude, and the degree of angular tuning. Responses evoked by all vibrissae within the receptive field of each cell exhibited a high consistency of direction preference, but a striking difference in angular tuning preference was found among cells that reside in the rostral and caudal divisions of the interpolaris nucleus. Although in caudal interpolaris vectors of angular preference pointed in all directions, in rostral interpolaris virtually all vectors pointed upward, revealing a strong preference for this direction. Control experiments showed that the upward bias did not rely on a preferential innervation of rostral cells by upwardly tuned primary vibrissa afferents, nor did it rely on a direction-selective recruitment of feedforward inhibition. We thus propose that the upward preference bias of rostral cells, which project to the posterior group of the thalamus, emerges from use-dependent synaptic processes that relate to the kinematics of whisking.

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 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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations40
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207