MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804862861 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.04.065

Sensory Afferents Use Different Coding Strategies for Heat and Cold

2018· article· en· W2804862861 on OpenAlexafffund
Feng Wang, Erik Bélanger, Sylvain Côté, Patrick Desrosiers, Steven A. Prescott, Daniel Côté, Yves De Koninck

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversité LavalInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMultiple Sclerosis SocietyMultiple Sclerosis Society of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation Brain CanadaHoward Hughes Medical Institute
KeywordsSomatosensory systemNeuroscienceDorsal root ganglionSensory systemAfferentPopulationNeural codingNeuronThermoreceptorCoding (social sciences)BiologySpinal cordSensory neuronMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primary afferents transduce environmental stimuli into electrical activity that is transmitted centrally to be decoded into corresponding sensations. However, it remains unknown how afferent populations encode different somatosensory inputs. To address this, we performed two-photon Ca 2+ imaging from thousands of dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons in anesthetized mice while applying mechanical and thermal stimuli to hind paws. We found that approximately half of all neurons are polymodal and that heat and cold are encoded very differently. As temperature increases, more heating-sensitive neurons are activated, and most individual neurons respond more strongly, consistent with graded coding at population and single-neuron levels, respectively. In contrast, most cooling-sensitive neurons respond in an ungraded fashion, inconsistent with graded coding and suggesting combinatorial coding, based on which neurons are co-activated. Although individual neurons may respond to multiple stimuli, our results show that different stimuli activate distinct combinations of diversely tuned neurons, enabling rich population-level coding.

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)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations136
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207