MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226139645 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhac178

Complex forelimb movements and cortical topography evoked by intracortical microstimulation in male and female mice

2022· article· en· W4226139645 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew Brown, Shaarang Mitra, G. Campbell Teskey, Jeffery A. Boychuk

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Neural Engineering
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteOntario Brain InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsForelimbNeuroscienceMicrostimulationMotor cortexAnatomyBiologyPrimary motor cortexCortex (anatomy)Stimulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The motor cortex is crucial for the voluntary control of skilled movement in mammals and is topographically organized into representations of the body (motor maps). Intracortical microstimulation of the motor cortex with long-duration pulse trains (LD-ICMS; ~500 ms) evokes complex movements, occurring in multiple joints or axial muscles, with characteristic movement postures and cortical topography across a variety of mammalian species. Although the laboratory mouse is extensively used in basic and pre-clinical research, high-resolution motor maps elicited with electrical LD-ICMS in both sexes of the adult mouse has yet to be reported. To address this knowledge gap, we performed LD-ICMS of the forelimb motor cortex in both male (n = 10) and naturally cycling female (n = 8) C57/BL6J mice under light ketamine-xylazine anesthesia. Complex and simple movements were evoked from historically defined caudal (CFA) and rostral (RFA) forelimb areas. Four complex forelimb movements were identified consisting of Elevate, Advance, Dig, and Retract postures with characteristic movement sequences and endpoints. Furthermore, evoked complex forelimb movements and cortical topography in mice were organized within the CFA in a unique manner relative to a qualitative comparison with the rat.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicNeuroscience and Neural EngineeringFrench-language works237,207