MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modulation of the synchronization between cells in visual cortex by contextual targets

2001· article· en· W2164679451 on OpenAlexaff
Frédéric Bretzner, Jamila Aı̈toubah, Svetlana Shumikhina, Yao‐Fang Tan, Stéphane Molotchnikoff

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceptive fieldStimulus (psychology)Synchronization (alternating current)Visual cortexNeuroscienceSine waveModulation (music)Surround suppressionCommunicationPhysicsComputer scienceComputer visionPsychologyVisual perceptionPerceptionAcousticsCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been suggested that synchronization of action potentials encodes diverse features of a single image. However, properties of the synchronization, which occurs on a time scale of approximately 1-5 ms, are still poorly understood. We have tested the modulation of synchronization by manipulating the contextual targets introduced in the surround of the receptive field. Experiments were carried out on anaesthetized cats prepared for multiunit and single-cell recordings in area 17. Initially, a patch of sine-wave drifting grating was positioned over the overlapping receptive fields of several neurons. If this coherent motion produced a significant synchronization in cross-correlograms, contextual targets were added. The first contextual stimuli were two sine-wave patches placed above and below the central compound receptive field. Only the contrast of contextual targets changed. Results show that the larger the differential contrast the higher the synchronization. The second contextual stimulus was a lateral shift of a sine-wave patch. Data show that the wider the distance between the central and peripheral patches the better the synchronization. Furthermore, results suggest that the synchrony pattern computed by cross correlating multiunit recordings from two sites differs when the cross correlation is carried out between individual units belonging to each multiunit recording. Together with our previous results it appears that synchronization is stimulus dependent and its strength increases with larger disparities included in the whole stimulating image.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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