MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143743231 · doi:10.1242/jeb.204.7.1295

Mechanisms of frequency-specific responses of ω neuron 1 in crickets (<i>Teleogryllus oceanicus</i>): a polysynaptic pathway for song?

2001· article· en· W2143743231 on OpenAlexaff
Zen Faulkes, Gerald S. Pollack

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcitatory postsynaptic potentialNeurosciencePicrotoxinPostsynaptic potentialStimulus (psychology)InterneuronStimulationBiologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialPsychologyGABAA receptorReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In crickets (Teleogryllus oceanicus), the auditory interneuron omega neuron 1 (ON1) responds to sounds over a wide range of frequencies but is most sensitive to the frequency of conspecific songs (4.5 kHz). Response latency is longest for this same frequency. We investigate the mechanisms that might account for the longer latency of ON1 to cricket-like sounds. Intracellular recordings revealed no evidence for appropriately timed postsynaptic inhibition of ON1 that might increase its latency, nor was latency affected by picrotoxin. The onset of excitatory postsynaptic potentials (EPSPs) was delayed for 4.5 kHz stimuli compared with ultrasound stimuli, pointing to a presynaptic locus for the latency difference. When ON1 is stimulated with high frequencies, discrete, apparently unitary EPSPs can be recorded in its dendrite, and these are latency-locked to spikes recorded simultaneously in the auditory nerve. This suggests that input to ON1 from high-frequency-tuned auditory receptor neurons is monosynaptic. In agreement with this, brief ultrasound stimuli evoke a single, short-latency EPSP in ON1. In contrast, the EPSP evoked by a brief 4.5 kHz stimulus consists of an early component, similar in latency to that evoked by ultrasound and possibly evoked by ultrasound-tuned receptors, and a later, dominant component. We interpret the early peak as arising from a monosynaptic afferent pathway and the late peak from a polysynaptic afferent pathway. Multiple-peak EPSPs, with timing similar to those evoked by sound stimuli, were also evoked by electrical stimulation of the auditory nerve.

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207