MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316653764 · doi:10.1152/jn.00546.2010

The Pedunculopontine Tegmental Nucleus: A Second Cholinergic Source for Frequency-Specific Auditory Plasticity

2010· article· en· W2316653764 on OpenAlexafffund
Feng Luo, Xiuping Liu, Carol Chunfeng Wang, Jun Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeurosciencePedunculopontine Tegmental NucleusMedial geniculate bodyCholinergicStimulationPedunculopontine nucleusMidbrainNeuroplasticityAuditory cortexReceptive fieldPsychologyInferior colliculusNucleusDeep brain stimulationCentral nervous systemMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cholinergic modulation is essential for many brain functions and is an indispensable component of the prevalent models attempting to understand the neural mechanism responsible for learning-induced auditory plasticity. Unlike the cholinergic basal forebrain, the cholinergic pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus (PPTg) has received little attention. This study was designed to confirm whether the PPTg enables frequency-specific plasticity in the ventral division of the medial geniculate body of the thalamus (MGBv). Using the mouse model, we paired electrical stimulation of the PPTg with tone stimulation to help define the role of the PPTg. The receptive fields of MGBv neurons were examined before and after the paired stimulation; they were quantified in this study by best frequency (BF), response threshold, dynamic range, and spike number. We found that the electrical stimulation of the PPTg together with a tone presentation shifted the BFs of MGBv neurons upward when the frequency of the paired tone was higher than that of the control BF. Similarly, the BFs shifted downward when the frequency of the paired tone was lower than that of the control BF. The BFs of MGBv neurons, however, remained unchanged when the frequency of the paired tone was the same as that of the control BF. There was a linear relationship between the BF shift of MGBv neurons and the difference between the frequency of the paired tone and the control BF of MGBv neurons. Highly frequency specific changes were also observed in the response threshold, dynamic range, and spike number. This frequency-specific plasticity was largely eliminated by the microinjection of the muscarinic receptor antagonist atropine into the MGBv before the paired stimulation. Our findings suggest that the PPTg, like the cholinergic basal forebrain, is an important cholinergic source that enables frequency-specific plasticity in the central auditory system.

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)0.001
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 score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207