MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2939884037 · doi:10.1152/jn.00496.2018

Visual cortex neurons phase-lock selectively to subsets of LFP oscillations

2019· article· en· W2939884037 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicholas V. Swindale, Martin A. Spacek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsLocal field potentialNeuroscienceReceptive fieldVisual cortexCortical neuronsCortex (anatomy)ElectrophysiologyPhysicsInhibitory postsynaptic potentialPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is generally thought that apart from receptive field differences, such as preferred orientation and spatial frequency selectivity, primary visual cortex neurons are functionally similar to each other. However, the genetic diversity of cortical neurons plus the existence of inputs additional to those required to explain known receptive field properties might suggest otherwise. Here we report the existence of desynchronized states in anesthetized cat area 17 lasting up to 45 min, characterized by variable narrow-band local field potential (LFP) oscillations in the range 2–100 Hz and the absence of a synchronized 1/ f frequency spectrum. During these periods, spontaneously active neurons phase-locked to variable subsets of LFP oscillations. Individual neurons often ignored frequencies that others phase-locked to. We suggest that these desynchronized periods may correspond to REM sleep-like episodes occurring under anesthesia. Frequency-selective codes may be used for signaling during these periods. Hence frequency-selective combination and frequency-labeled pathways may represent a previously unsuspected dimension of cortical organization. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We investigated spontaneous neuronal firing during periods of desynchronized local field potential (LFP) activity, resembling REM sleep, in anesthetized cats. During these periods, neurons synchronized their spikes to specific phases of multiple LFP frequency components, with some neurons ignoring frequencies that others were synchronized to. Some neurons fired at phase alignments of frequency pairs, thereby acting as phase coincidence detectors. These results suggest that internal brain signaling may use frequency combination codes to generate temporally structured spike trains.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurophysiology→Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→