Single‐cell study of motor cortex projections to the barrel field in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In freely moving rats, whisking is associated with a slow modulation of neuronal excitability in the primary somatosensory cortex. Because it persists after the blockade of vibrissa input, it was suggested that the slow modulation might be mediated by motor-sensory corticocortical connections and perhaps result from the corollary discharges of corticofugal cells. In the present study, we identified motor cortical cells that project to the barrel field and reconstructed their axonal projections after juxtacellularly staining single cells with a biotinylated tracer. On the basis of the final destination of main axons, two groups of neurons contribute to motor-sensory projections: callosal cells (87.5%) and corticofugal cells (12.5%). Axon collaterals of callosal cells arborize in layers five to six of the granular and dysgranular zones and give off several branches that ascend between the barrels to ramify in the molecular layer. In contrast, the axon collaterals of corticofugal cells do not ramify in the infragranular layers but in layer 1. The origin of the majority of motor sensory projections from callosally projecting cells does not support the notion that the slow modulation results from the corollary discharges of corticofugal axons. It would rather originate from a separate population of cells, which could output the slow signal to the barrel field in parallel with the corticofugal commands to a brainstem pattern generator. As free whisking is characterized by bilateral concerted movements of the vibrissae, the transcallosal contribution of motor-sensory axons represents a substrate for synchronizing the slow modulation across both hemispheres.
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".