Comparison of fMRI BOLD Response Patterns by Electrical Stimulation of the Ventroposterior Complex and Medial Thalamus of the Rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the functional connectivity of the lateral and medial thalamocortical pain pathways by investigating the blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) activation patterns in the forebrain elicited by direct electrical stimulation of the ventroposterior (VP) and medial (MT) thalamus. An MRI-compatible stimulation electrode was implanted in the VP or MT of α-chloralose-anesthetized rats. Electrical stimulation was applied to the VP or MT at various intensities (50 µA to 300 µA) and frequencies (1 Hz to 12 Hz). BOLD responses were analyzed in the ipsilateral forelimb region of the primary somatosensory cortex (iS1FL) after VP stimulation and in the ipsilateral cingulate cortex (iCC) after MT stimulation. When stimulating the VP, the strongest activation occurred at 3 Hz. The stimulation intensity threshold was 50 µA and the response rapidly peaked at 100 µA. When stimulating the MT, The optimal frequency for stimulation was 9 Hz or 12 Hz, the stimulation intensity threshold was 100 µA and we observed a graded increase in the BOLD response following the application of higher intensity stimuli. We also evaluated c-Fos expression following the application of a 200-µA stimulus. Ventroposterior thalamic stimulation elicited c-Fos-positivity in few cells in the iS1FL and caudate putamen (iCPu). Medial thalamic stimulation, however, produced numerous c-Fos-positive cells in the iCC and iCPu. The differential BOLD responses and c-Fos expressions elicited by VP and MT stimulation indicate differences in stimulus-response properties of the medial and lateral thalamic pain pathways.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".