MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747283152 · doi:10.1101/176800

Spontaneous activity synchronizes whisker-related sensorimotor networks prior to their maturation in the developing rat cortex

2017· preprint· en· W2747283152 on OpenAlexafffund
David A. McVea, Timothy H. Murphy, Majid H. Mohajerani

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BCNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlzheimer Society
KeywordsNeuroscienceMicrostimulationSomatosensory systemBarrel cortexCortex (anatomy)Motor cortexStimulationSensorimotor cortexSensory systemPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A prominent feature of the cortical systems controlling the whiskers in the adult rodent is tight coupling between sensory and motor systems. Stimulation of the whiskers evokes activation of discrete motor regions of cortex shortly after activation of the sensory cortex. To explore the factors that direct the development of sensorimotor functional connectivity, we recorded spontaneous and whisker-evoked cortical activity using voltage-sensitive imaging over a large (7X7 mm) craniotomy in postnatal rats (day 5-12) under anesthesia. We found that spontaneous bursts of activity in the barrel cortex were correlated predominantly with activity in motor (anterio-medial) cortex, at ages before whisker stimulation evoked activation in this area. Intracortical microstimulation and anatomical tracing experiments confirmed there were no functional or anatomical intracortical sensorimotor connections. We interpret these results as evidence that the spontaneous patterns of activity in the cortex synchronize functionally related regions of the brain prior to their maturation. Author Contributions D.A.M, T.H.M., and M.H.M. designed the study. D.A.M, and M.H.M performed the experiments and analyzed the data and wrote the manuscript, which all authors commented on and edited. T.H.M. 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207