MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084780304 · doi:10.1111/ejn.14967

Effects of visual adaptation on orientation selectivity in cat secondary visual cortex

2020· article· en· W3084780304 on OpenAlexafffund
Rudy Lussiez, Nayan Chanauria, Afef Ouelhazi, Stéphane Molotchnikoff

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVisual cortexAdaptation (eye)NeuroscienceOrientation (vector space)SelectivityElectrophysiologyVisual systemNeuronCortical neuronsOrientation columnNeuroplasticityPsychologyBiologyStriate cortexGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neuron orientation selectivity, otherwise known as the ability to respond optimally to a preferred orientation, has been extensively described in both primary and secondary visual cortices. This orientation selectivity, conserved through all cortical layers of a given column, is the primary basis for cortical organization and functional network emergence. While this selectivity is programmed and acquired since critical period, it has always been believed that in a mature brain, neurons' inherent functional features could not be changed. However, a plurality of studies has investigated the mature brain plasticity in V1, by changing the cells' orientation selectivity with visual adaptation. Using electrophysiological data in both V1 and V2 areas, this study aims to investigate the effects of adaptation on simultaneously recorded cells in both areas. Visual adaptation had an enhanced effect on V2 units, as they exhibited greater tuning curve shifts and a more pronounced decrease of their OSI. Not only did adaptation have a different effect on V2 neurons, it also elicited a different response depending on the neuron's cortical depth. Indeed, in V2, cells in layers II-III were more affected by visual adaptation, while infragranular layer V units exhibited little to no effect at all.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207