Pharmacological Mechanisms of Cortical Enhancement Induced by the Repetitive Pairing of Visual/Cholinergic Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repetitive visual training paired with electrical activation of cholinergic projections to the primary visual cortex (V1) induces long-term enhancement of cortical processing in response to the visual training stimulus. To better determine the receptor subtypes mediating this effect the selective pharmacological blockade of V1 nicotinic (nAChR), M1 and M2 muscarinic (mAChR) or GABAergic A (GABAAR) receptors was performed during the training session and visual evoked potentials (VEPs) were recorded before and after training. The training session consisted of the exposure of awake, adult rats to an orientation-specific 0.12 CPD grating paired with an electrical stimulation of the basal forebrain for a duration of 1 week for 10 minutes per day. Pharmacological agents were infused intracortically during this period. The post-training VEP amplitude was significantly increased compared to the pre-training values for the trained spatial frequency and to adjacent spatial frequencies up to 0.3 CPD, suggesting a long-term increase of V1 sensitivity. This increase was totally blocked by the nAChR antagonist as well as by an M2 mAChR subtype and GABAAR antagonist. Moreover, administration of the M2 mAChR antagonist also significantly decreased the amplitude of the control VEPs, suggesting a suppressive effect on cortical responsiveness. However, the M1 mAChR antagonist blocked the increase of the VEP amplitude only for the high spatial frequency (0.3 CPD), suggesting that M1 role was limited to the spread of the enhancement effect to a higher spatial frequency. More generally, all the drugs used did block the VEP increase at 0.3 CPD. Further, use of each of the aforementioned receptor antagonists blocked training-induced changes in gamma and beta band oscillations. These findings demonstrate that visual training coupled with cholinergic stimulation improved perceptual sensitivity by enhancing cortical responsiveness in V1. This enhancement is mainly mediated by nAChRs, M2 mAChRs and GABAARs. The M1 mAChR subtype appears to be involved in spreading the enhancement of V1 cortical responsiveness to adjacent neurons.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".