Neuronal networks and mediators of cortical neurovascular coupling responses in normal and altered brain states
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Brain imaging techniques that use vascular signals to map changes in neuronal activity, such as blood oxygenation level-dependent functional magnetic resonance imaging, rely on the spatial and temporal coupling between changes in neurophysiology and haemodynamics, known as 'neurovascular coupling (NVC)'. Accordingly, NVC responses, mapped by changes in brain haemodynamics, have been validated for different stimuli under physiological conditions. In the cerebral cortex, the networks of excitatory pyramidal cells and inhibitory interneurons generating the changes in neural activity and the key mediators that signal to the vascular unit have been identified for some incoming afferent pathways. The neural circuits recruited by whisker glutamatergic-, basal forebrain cholinergic- or locus coeruleus noradrenergic pathway stimulation were found to be highly specific and discriminative, particularly when comparing the two modulatory systems to the sensory response. However, it is largely unknown whether or not NVC is still reliable when brain states are altered or in disease conditions. This lack of knowledge is surprising since brain imaging is broadly used in humans and, ultimately, in conditions that deviate from baseline brain function. Using the whisker-to-barrel pathway as a model of NVC, we can interrogate the reliability of NVC under enhanced cholinergic or noradrenergic modulation of cortical circuits that alters brain states.This article is part of the themed issue 'Interpreting BOLD: a dialogue between cognitive and cellular neuroscience'.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".