MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291275083 · doi:10.1152/jn.2002.88.2.771

Local Field Potential Oscillations in Primate Cerebellar Cortex: Modulation During Active and Passive Expectancy

2002· article· en· W2291275083 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Courtemanche, Jean-Pierre Pellerin, Y. Lamarre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVestibular and auditory disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLocal field potentialNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)LeverPsychologyPrimateElectrophysiologyPhysicsCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebellar local field potential (LFP) oscillations were recorded in the paramedian lobule of one hemisphere, while monkeys were in two behavioral conditions: actively performing an elbow flexion-extension or a lever-press task in response to an auditory or visual stimulus to get reward (active condition), or waiting quietly for the reward to come in the same time window after the appearance of the stimulus (passive condition). The oscillations in the paramedian lobule were first characterized in four monkeys, and they showed an idiosyncratic frequency for each monkey, between 13 and 25 Hz. The granule cell layer multi-unit activity was phase-locked with the negative phase of the LFP oscillations, while Purkinje cell simple spikes were also sometimes phase-locked with the LFP. Three monkeys were trained to perform the motor tasks: the LFP oscillations were modulated, in the active condition, in a systematic manner in relation to the lever-press or elbow flexion-extension tasks. During periods when the monkey was waiting to initiate movement, LFP oscillations appeared and then stopped with movement initiation. This modulation was valid for the task being executed with either hand. Surprisingly, the LFP oscillations were also systematically modulated during the passive condition; as the monkey was waiting for the usual time to get a reward passively, oscillations appeared stronger and were stopped by the end of the usual delay, whether the monkey was rewarded or not. This type of modulation was not affected by the length of the stimulus, as long as the reward window was known to the monkey. If the monkey had not been previously trained to the active condition, the modulation appeared in the passive condition. These results show that cerebellar LFP oscillations in the paramedian lobule are reliably present when the monkey is involved in a waiting period, whether this period ends with an active or passive event. This study provides electrophysiological evidence for a specific pattern of activity in the cerebellum for the expectancy of events that are known to be bound to happen, either externally, or from voluntary action.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations69
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicVestibular and auditory disordersFrench-language works237,207