MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Role of Thalamocortical Sensory Suppression during Arousal: Focusing Sensory Inputs in Neocortex

2002· article· en· W2148276911 on OpenAlexafffund
Manuel A. Castro‐Alamancos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesMedical Research CouncilSavoy FoundationNational Institutes of HealthMedical Research Council CanadaUniversity of Michigan
KeywordsNeocortexSensory systemNeuroscienceArousalTonic (physiology)ThalamusReticular activating systemPsychologySensory processingBrainstemSensory stimulation therapyReticular formationStimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thalamus serves as a gate that regulates the flow of sensory inputs to the neocortex, and this gate is controlled by neuromodulators from the brainstem reticular formation that are released during arousal. We found recently that sensory-evoked responses are suppressed in the neocortex during arousal. This sensory suppression results from the activity-dependent depression of the thalamocortical connection caused by increased tonic firing of thalamocortical cells during arousal. In the present study, the functional consequences of thalamocortical suppression during arousal were investigated using the vibrissae system of rodents. The results show that thalamocortical suppression is associated with a strong reduction in the spread of sensory inputs through the cortex, thus reducing the size of sensory representations. In addition, when the responses of single cells to principal and adjacent whiskers are compared, the response to the adjacent whiskers was found to be strongly suppressed, much more so than that of principal whiskers. Consequently, the receptive fields of cortical neurons become more focused to the principal whisker. The results indicate that thalamocortical suppression during arousal serves to focus sensory inputs to their appropriate representations in neocortex, which may be computationally helpful for the spatial processing of sensory information.

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 score0.002

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations91
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207