MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082408352 · doi:10.1101/2020.08.30.274308

Sensory stimulus evoked responses in layer 2/3 pyramidal neurons of the hind paw-related mouse primary somatosensory cortex

2020· preprint· en· W3082408352 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Bony, Arjun Bhaskaran, Katy Le Corf, Andreas Frick

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomatosensory systemNeuroscienceSensory systemNeocortexStimulationBarrel cortexStimulus (psychology)Sensory stimulation therapyElectrophysiologyPsychologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The mouse primary somatosensory cortex (S1) processes tactile sensory information and is the largest neocortex area emphasizing the importance of this sensory modality for rodent behavior. Most of our knowledge regarding information processing in S1 stems from studies of the whisker-related barrel cortex (S1–BC), yet the processing of tactile inputs from the hind-paws is poorly understood. We used in vivo whole-cell patch-clamp recordings from layer (L) 2/3 pyramidal neurons (PNs) of the S1 hind-paw (S1-HP) region of anaesthetized wild type (WT) mice to investigate their evoked sub- and supra-threshold activity, intrinsic properties, and spontaneous activity. Approximately 45% of these L2/3 PNs responded to brief contralateral HP stimulation in a subthreshold manner, ~5% fired action potentials, and ~50% of L2/3 PNs did not respond at all. The evoked subthreshold responses had long onset- (~23 ms) and peak-latencies (~61 ms). The majority (86%) of these L2/3 PNs responded to prolonged (stance-like) HP stimulation with both on- and off-responses. HP stimulation responsive L2/3 PNs had a greater intrinsic excitability compared to non-responsive ones, possibly reflecting differences in their physiological role. Similar to S1-BC, L2/3 PNs displayed up- and down-states, and low spontaneous firing rates (~0.1 Hz). Our findings support a sparse coding scheme of operation for S1–HP L2/3 PNs and highlight both differences and similarities with L2/3 PNs from other somatosensory cortex areas. KEY POINTS Responses of layer (L) 2/3 pyramidal neurons (PNs) of the primary somatosensory hind-paw cortex (S1-HP) to contralateral hind-paw stimulation reveal both differences and similarities compared to those of somatosensory neurons responding to other tactile (e.g. whiskers, forepaw, tongue) modalities. Similar to whisker-related barrel cortex (S1-BC) and forepaw cortex (S1-FP) S1-HP L2/3 PNs show a low spontaneous firing rate and a sparse action potential coding of evoked activity. In contrast to S1-BC, brief hind-paw stimulus evoked responses display a long latency in S1-HP neurons consistent with their different functional role. The great majority of L 2/3 PNs respond to prolonged hind-paw stimulation with both on- and off-responses. These results help us to better understand sensory information processing within layer 2/3 of the neocortex and the regional differences related to various tactile modalities.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207