Descending pathways generate perception of and neural responses to weak sensory input
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural sensory stimuli frequently consist of a fast time-varying waveform whose amplitude or contrast varies more slowly. While changes in contrast carry behaviorally relevant information necessary for sensory perception, their processing by the brain remains poorly understood to this day. Here, we investigated the mechanisms that enable neural responses to and perception of low-contrast stimuli in the electrosensory system of the weakly electric fish Apteronotus leptorhynchus. We found that fish reliably detected such stimuli via robust behavioral responses. Recordings from peripheral electrosensory neurons revealed stimulus-induced changes in firing activity (i.e., phase locking) but not in their overall firing rate. However, central electrosensory neurons receiving input from the periphery responded robustly via both phase locking and increases in firing rate. Pharmacological inactivation of feedback input onto central electrosensory neurons eliminated increases in firing rate but did not affect phase locking for central electrosensory neurons in response to low-contrast stimuli. As feedback inactivation eliminated behavioral responses to these stimuli as well, our results show that it is changes in central electrosensory neuron firing rate that are relevant for behavior, rather than phase locking. Finally, recordings from neurons projecting directly via feedback to central electrosensory neurons revealed that they provide the necessary input to cause increases in firing rate. Our results thus provide the first experimental evidence that feedback generates both neural and behavioral responses to low-contrast stimuli that are commonly found in the natural environment.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".