New waves: Rhythmic electrical field stimulation systematically alters spontaneous slow dynamics across mouse neocortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The signature rhythm of slow-wave forebrain activity is the large amplitude, slow oscillation (SO: ~1 Hz) made up of alternating synchronous periods of depolarizing and hyperpolarizing states at the single cell and network levels. On each wave, the SO originates at a unique location and propagates across the neocortex. Attempts to manipulate SO activity using electrical fields have been shown to entrain cortical networks and enhance memory performance. However, neural activity during this manipulation has remained elusive due to methodological issues in typical electrical recordings. Here we use voltage-sensitive dye (VSD) imaging in a bilateral cortical preparation of urethane-anesthetized mice to track SO cortical activity and its modulation by sinusoidal electrical field stimulation applied to frontal regions. We show that under spontaneous conditions, the SO propagates in two main opposing directional patterns along an anterior lateral – posterior medial axis. Rhythmic field stimulation alters spontaneous propagation to reflect activity that repeats cycle after cycle with distributed and varied anterior initiation zones and a consistent termination zone in the posterior somatosensory cortex. Our results show that slow electrical field stimulation stereotypes ongoing slow cortical dynamics during sleep-like states. Author Contributions A.G., J.K.A., M.H.M. and C.T.D. designed the study. A.G. and J.K.A. performed the experiments. A.G. analyzed the data. A.G. wrote the manuscript, which all authors commented on and edited. C.T.D. and M.H.M. supervised the study.
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".