Cerebral Activation to Intranasal Chemosensory Trigeminal Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although numerous functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) studies have been performed on the processing of olfactory information, the intranasal trigeminal system so far has not received much attention. In the present study, we sought to delineate the neural correlates of trigeminal stimulation using carbon dioxide (CO(2)) presented to the left or right nostril. Fifteen right-handed men underwent FMRI using single runs of 3 conditions (CO(2) in the right and the left nostrils and an olfactory stimulant-phenyl ethyl alcohol-in the right nostril). As expected, olfactory activations were located in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), amygdala, and rostral insula. For trigeminal stimulation, activations were found in "trigeminal" and "olfactory" regions including the pre- and postcentral gyrus, the cerebellum, the ventrolateral thalamus, the insula, the contralateral piriform cortex, and the OFC. Left compared with right side stimulations resulted in stronger cerebellar and brain stem activations; right versus left stimulation resulted in stronger activations of the superior temporal sulcus and OFC. These results suggest a trigeminal processing system that taps into similar cortical regions and yet is separate from that of the olfactory system. The overlapping pattern of cortical activation for trigeminal and olfactory stimuli is assumed to be due to the intimate connections in the processing of information from the 2 major intranasal chemosensory systems.
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) | 0.004 | 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".