Central Processing of Trigeminal Activation in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although numerous fMRI studies have been performed on the processing of olfactory information, the intranasal trigeminal system so far has not received much attention. In a pilot study stimulants were presented within a constantly flowing airstream birhinally to activate the olfactory (phenylethyl alcohol, H(2)S) or the trigeminal (CO(2)) nerves. Both olfactory and trigeminal stimulation activated the ventral insular cortex. Intranasal trigeminal stimulation additionally led to an activation of the midbrain, superior temporal gyrus, anterior caudate nucleus, and the dorsolateral orbitofrontal cortex. Cerebellar activation was reduced relative to odorous stimuli. For all stimuli, right-sided activity was more pronounced. These results suggested that processing of intranasal activation follows a pattern which is, at least to some degree, similar for both trigeminal and olfactory stimulation. This and results from several other studies emphasize the fact that there is a high degree of interaction between the different aspects of the chemical senses, also in the sense that chemosensory-induced activation in the nasal cavity is processed in similar cortical networks. Interactions between the olfactory and trigeminal system can also be seen in patients with acquired olfactory loss, who exhibit reduced trigeminal sensitivity, possibly due to the lack of a central-nervous interaction. Both the orbitofrontal cortex and the rostral insula appear to be of significance in the amplification of trigeminal input, which is missing in patients with olfactory loss.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".