MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045597990 · doi:10.1242/jeb.082370

Neuromodulation of early electrosensory processing in gymnotiform weakly electric fish

2013· review· en· W2045597990 on OpenAlexafffund
Brenda Toscano Márquez, Rüdiger Krahe, Maurice J. Chacron

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsElectric fishNeuroscienceNeuromodulationSensory systemSensory processingHindbrainElectroreceptionBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Central nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensory neurons continually adapt their processing properties in response to changes in the sensory environment or the brain's internal state. Neuromodulators are thought to mediate such adaptation through a variety of receptors and their action has been implicated in processes such as attention, learning and memory, aggression, reproductive behaviour and state-dependent mechanisms. Here, we review recent work on neuromodulation of electrosensory processing by acetylcholine and serotonin in the weakly electric fish Apteronotus leptorhynchus. Specifically, our review focuses on how experimental application of these neuromodulators alters excitability and responses to sensory input of pyramidal cells within the hindbrain electrosensory lateral line lobe. We then discuss current hypotheses on the functional roles of these two neuromodulatory pathways in regulating electrosensory processing at the organismal level and the need for identifying the natural behavioural conditions that activate these pathways.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207