MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2700606522 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2017.06.018

Peripheral Sensory Deprivation Restores Critical-Period-like Plasticity to Adult Somatosensory Thalamocortical Inputs

2017· article· en· W2700606522 on OpenAlexaff
Seungsoo Chung, Ji‐Hyun Jeong, Sukjin Ko, Xin Yu, Young‐Hwan Kim, John Isaac, Alan P. Koretsky

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
FundersYonsei University College of MedicineNational Institutes of HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Science, ICT and Future Planning
KeywordsSomatosensory systemSensory deprivationSensory systemPeripheralNeuroplasticityNeurosciencePeriod (music)Sensory stimulation therapyPlasticityBiologyMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent work has shown that thalamocortical (TC) inputs can be plastic after the developmental critical period has closed, but the mechanism that enables re-establishment of plasticity is unclear. Here, we find that long-term potentiation (LTP) at TC inputs is transiently restored in spared barrel cortex following either a unilateral infra-orbital nerve (ION) lesion, unilateral whisker trimming, or unilateral ablation of the rodent barrel cortex. Restoration of LTP is associated with increased potency at TC input and reactivates anatomical map plasticity induced by whisker follicle ablation. The reactivation of TC LTP is accompanied by reappearance of silent synapses. Both LTP and silent synapse formation are preceded by transient re-expression of synaptic GluN2B-containing N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, which are required for the reappearance of TC plasticity. These results clearly demonstrate that peripheral sensory deprivation reactivates synaptic plasticity in the mature layer 4 barrel cortex with features similar to the developmental critical period.

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)0.007
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207