MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2093895409 · doi:10.1152/jn.00080.2004

Local Field Potential Oscillations in Primate Cerebellar Cortex: Synchronization With Cerebral Cortex During Active and Passive Expectancy

2005· article· en· W2093895409 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocal field potentialNeuroscienceSomatosensory systemCerebellumStimulus (psychology)MacaquePsychologyElectrophysiologyPremovement neuronal activityCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many brain regions, such as the cerebellum, primary somatosensory cortex (SI), and primary motor cortex (MI), interact to produce coordinated actions. Synchronization of local field potentials (LFPs) in sensorimotor cerebral areas has been related to motor performance, often through 10- to 25-Hz oscillatory LFPs. The macaque cerebellar paramedian lobule (PM) also shows 10- to 25-Hz LFP oscillations, which are modulated in a stimulus-response lever press task to get reward (active condition), but also, albeit differently, in a similarly timed stimulus-reward relation (passive condition). This study focuses on simultaneous LFP activity in primate SI or MI and the PM cerebellum during the active (left- or right-hand lever presses) and passive conditions. Results show a similar modulation pattern of 10- to 25-Hz oscillations in the cerebellum, MI, and SI during the active condition (left or right hand), decreasing after stimulus onset, returning, and again decreasing after movement onset. In the passive condition, when the monkey did not move but got reward, all 3 areas show an oscillatory profile where oscillations increase after stimulus onset and last until reward, denoting a role for these oscillations in passive expectancy. However, synchronization between cerebellar LFPs and SI LFPs is higher during the active condition than during the passive condition, and highest for the interested hand. This greater PM-SI synchronization, when the monkey had to press the lever, could represent a form of cerebro-cerebellar communication, perhaps to serve somatosensory processing to accomplish the task; PM-MI synchronization was less selective for the hand used and might carry a more general type of information.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.621
Threshold uncertainty score0.427

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.221 · 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