MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128752252 · doi:10.1080/000164800750001044

Local Haemodynamic Changes Associated with Neural Activity in Auditory Cortex

2000· article· en· W2128752252 on OpenAlexaff
Robert V. Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Oto-Laryngologica · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsAuditory cortexHemodynamicsNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)StimulationCortex (anatomy)Neural activityHaemodynamic responseEvoked activityVisual cortexPsychologyMedicineInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used an optical technique to study haemodynamic changes associated with acoustically driven activity in auditory cortex of the chinchilla. Such changes are first detectable c. 0.5 s after stimulation, peak at 2-3 s, and decay within a further 3-6 s. This intrinsic signal imaging reveals activity in separate cortical areas, including primary auditory cortex (AI), secondary auditory cortex (AII) and an anterior auditory field (AAF). We have measured the timing of haemodynamics associated with each area, and find that AI has a different time course from AII and AAF; its haemodynamic change recovers more rapidly. We also show that within AI and AII, place specific activity related to acoustic stimulus frequency can be resolved by this optical imaging method. Our results show the close association between blood flow change and the local metabolic demands of neural activity. The data provide information about the potential of other functional imaging methods (e.g. PET, fMRI) which rely on activity related haemodynamic events.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Oto-LaryngologicaSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207