MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105256902 · doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2004.067686

Effects of cortical stimulation on auditory‐responsive thalamic neurones in anaesthetized guinea pigs

2004· article· en· W2105256902 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ying Xiong, Yan‐Qin Yu, YS Chan, Jufang He

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, IrvineUniversity of Hong KongUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsExcitatory postsynaptic potentialInhibitory postsynaptic potentialNeuroscienceStimulationMedial geniculate bodyPostsynaptic potentialDepolarizationStimulus (psychology)ChemistryBiologyInferior colliculusPsychologyBiophysicsNucleus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, we investigated neuronal responses to acoustic stimuli and cortical stimulation in the medial geniculate body (MGB) through in vivo intracellular recordings in anaesthetized guinea pigs. Of the 54 neurones examined with acoustic stimuli, 36 showed excitatory postsynaptic potential (EPSP) responses and 19 showed inhibitory postsynaptic potential (IPSP) responses to acoustic stimuli. Of the 36 EPSP neurones examined with corticofugal modulation, 29 received corticofugal depolarization, 3 corticofugal inhibition, and 4 showed no effect. Of the 19 IPSP neurones, 17 received corticofugal inhibition and 2 were not affected. The mean amplitude of the EPSPs evoked by acoustic stimuli was similar to that evoked by the electrical cortical stimulation (9.19 +/- 5.55 mV versus 9.22 +/- 5.16 mV). There was a significant correlation between the parameters of the EPSPs evoked by an acoustic stimulus and those evoked by cortical stimulation. The mean amplitude of the IPSP evoked by electrical cortical stimulation was significantly greater than that evoked by acoustic stimuli (11.6 +/- 3.8 mV versus 9.1 +/- 3.7 ms, P < 0.05). Seven auditory EPSP and 7 IPSP neurones were examined with corticofugal modulation and labelled with Neurobiotin. Of the 7 EPSP neurones, 5 showed excitatory responses to cortical stimulation and 2 demonstrated no effects. Four of the 5 neurones that received corticofugal depolarization were located in the lemniscal MGB and 1 in the non-lemniscal MGB; of the remaining 2, 1 was located in the lemniscal and the other in the non-lemniscal MGB. Of the 7 IPSP neurones, 1 received an excitatory corticofugal input followed by an inhibitory input and 4 received only an inhibitory corticofugal input, while the remainder demonstrated no corticofugal effects. All 7 neurones were located in the non-lemniscal MGB. The result that both ascending and descending inputs caused similarly shaped EPSPs reflects a neuronal endogenous characteristic irrespective of the physical locations of the synapses. The IPSP responses to both acoustic stimuli and electrical cortical stimulation are likely to be caused by feedback from the thalamic reticular nucleus.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 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

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of PhysiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207