MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3022226312 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhaa106

Contribution of the Entopeduncular Nucleus and the Globus Pallidus to the Control of Locomotion and Visually Guided Gait Modifications in the Cat

2020· article· en· W3022226312 on OpenAlexafffund
Yannick Mullié, Irène Arto, Nabiha Yahiaoui, Trevor Drew

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsForelimbNeuroscienceGlobus pallidusContext (archaeology)PopulationGaitBiologyBasal gangliaPsychologyCentral nervous systemMedicinePhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tested the hypothesis that the entopeduncular (EP) nucleus (feline equivalent of the primate GPi) and the globus pallidus (GPe) contribute to both the planning and execution of locomotion and voluntary gait modifications in the cat. We recorded from 414 cells distributed throughout these two nuclei (referred to together as the pallidum) while cats walked on a treadmill and stepped over an obstacle that advanced towards them. Neuronal activity in many cells in both structures was modulated on a step-by-step basis during unobstructed locomotion and was modified in the step over the obstacle. On a population basis, the most frequently observed change, in both the EP and the GPe, was an increase in activity prior to and/or during the swing phase of the step over the obstacle by the contralateral forelimb, when it was the first limb to pass over the obstacle. Our results support a contribution of the pallidum, in concert with cortical structures, to the control of both the planning and the execution of the gait modifications. We discuss the results in the context of current models of pallidal action on thalamic activity, including the possibility that cells in the EP with increased activity may sculpt thalamo-cortical activity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicNeurological disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207