Pulvinar Modulates Synchrony across Visual Cortical Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cortical visual hierarchy communicates in different oscillatory ranges. While gamma waves influence the feedforward processing, alpha oscillations travel in the feedback direction. Little is known how this oscillatory cortical communication depends on an alternative route that involves the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus. We investigated whether the oscillatory coupling between the primary visual cortex (area 17) and area 21a depends on the transthalamic pathway involving the pulvinar in cats. To that end, visual evoked responses were recorded in areas 17 and 21a before, during and after inactivation of the pulvinar. Local field potentials were analyzed with Wavelet and Granger causality tools to determine the oscillatory coupling between layers. The results indicate that cortical oscillatory activity was enhanced during pulvinar inactivation, in particular for area 21a. In area 17, alpha band responses were represented in layers II/III. In area 21a, gamma oscillations, except for layer I, were significantly increased, especially in layer IV. Granger causality showed that the pulvinar modulated the oscillatory information between areas 17 and 21a in gamma and alpha bands for the feedforward and feedback processing, respectively. Together, these findings indicate that the pulvinar is involved in the mechanisms underlying oscillatory communication along the visual cortex.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".