MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3004996131 · doi:10.1152/jn.00014.2019

Differential effects of the mode of touch, active and passive, on experience-driven plasticity in the S1 cutaneous digit representation of adult macaque monkeys

2020· article· en· W3004996131 on OpenAlexafffund
Anita Cybulska-Kłosowicz, François Tremblay, Wan Jiang, Stéphanie Bourgeon, El-Mehdi Meftah, C. Elaine Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsReceptive fieldSomatosensory systemMacaqueNeurosciencePsychologyContext (archaeology)Sensory systemRepresentation (politics)Tactile discriminationCommunicationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study compared the receptive field (RF) properties and firing rates of neurons in the cutaneous hand representation of primary somatosensory cortex (areas 3b, 1, and 2) of 9 awake, adult macaques that were intensively trained in a texture discrimination task using active touch (fingertips scanned over the surfaces using a single voluntary movement), passive touch (surfaces displaced under the immobile fingertips), or both active and passive touch. Two control monkeys received passive exposure to the same textures in the context of a visual discrimination task. Training and recording extended over 1–2 yr per animal. All neurons had a cutaneous receptive field (RF) that included the tips of the stimulated digits (D3 and/or D4). In area 3b, RFs were largest in monkeys trained with active touch, smallest in those trained with passive touch, and intermediate in those trained with both; i.e., the mode of touch differentially modified the cortical representation of the stimulated fingers. The same trends were seen in areas 1 and 2, but the changes were not significant, possibly because a second experience-driven influence was seen in areas 1 and 2, but not in area 3b: smaller RFs with passive exposure to irrelevant tactile inputs compared with recordings from one naive hemisphere. We suggest that added feedback during active touch and higher cortical firing rates were responsible for the larger RFs with behavioral training; this influence was tempered by periods of more restricted sensory feedback during passive touch training in the active + passive monkeys. NEW & NOTEWORTHY We studied experience-dependent sensory cortical plasticity in relation to tactile discrimination of texture using active and/or passive touch. We showed that neuronal receptive fields in primary somatosensory cortex, especially area 3b, are largest in monkeys trained with active touch, smallest in those trained with passive touch, and intermediate in those trained using both modes of touch. Prolonged, irrelevant tactile input had the opposite influence in areas 1 and 2, favoring smaller receptive fields.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 score0.002

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 head0.285
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207