Cannabinoids Reveal Separate Controls for Whisking Amplitude and Timing in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whisking is controlled by multiple, possibly functionally segregated, motor sensory-motor loops. While testing for effects of endocannabinoids on whisking, we uncovered the first known functional segregation of channels controlling whisking amplitude and timing. Channels controlling amplitude, but not timing, were modulated by cannabinoid receptor type 1 (CB1R). Systemic administration of CB1R agonist Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (Δ(9)-THC) reduced whisking spectral power across all tested doses (1.25-5 mg/kg), whereas whisking frequency was affected at only very high doses (5 mg/kg). Concomitantly, whisking amplitude and velocity were significantly reduced in a dose-dependent manner (25-43 and 26-50%, respectively), whereas cycle duration and bilateral synchrony were hardly affected (3-16 and 3-9%, respectively). Preadministration of CB1R antagonist SR141716A blocked Δ(9)-THC-induced kinematic alterations of whisking, and when administered alone, increased whisking amplitude and velocity but affected neither cycle duration nor synchrony. These findings indicate that whisking amplitude and timing are controlled by separate channels and that endocannabinoids modulate amplitude control channels.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".