Corticothalamic Projections Gate Alpha Rhythms in the Pulvinar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two types of corticothalamic (CT) terminals reach the pulvinar nucleus of the thalamus, and their distribution varies according to the hierarchical level of the cortical area they originate from. While type 2 terminals are more abundant at lower hierarchical levels, terminals from higher cortical areas mostly exhibit type 1 axons. Such terminals also evoke different excitatory postsynaptic potential dynamic profiles, presenting facilitation for type 1 and depression for type 2. As the pulvinar is involved in the oscillatory regulation between intercortical areas, fundamental questions about the role of these different terminal types in the neuronal communication throughout the cortical hierarchy are yielded. Our theoretical results support that the co-action of the two types of terminals produces different oscillatory rhythms in pulvinar neurons. More precisely, terminal types 1 and 2 produce alpha-band oscillations at a specific range of connectivity weights. Such oscillatory activity is generated by an unstable transition of the balanced state network's properties that it is found between the quiescent state and the stable asynchronous spike response state. While CT projections from areas 17 and 21a are arranged in the model as the empirical proportion of terminal types 1 and 2, the actions of these two cortical connections are antagonistic. As area 17 generates low-band oscillatory activity, cortical area 21a shifts pulvinar responses to stable asynchronous spiking activity and vice versa when area 17 produces an asynchronous state. To further investigate such oscillatory effects through corticothalamo-cortical projections, the transthalamic pathway, we created a cortical feedforward network of two cortical areas, 17 and 21a, with CT connections to a pulvinar-like network with two cortico-recipient compartments. With this model, the transthalamic pathway propagates alpha waves from the pulvinar to area 21a. This oscillatory transfer ceases when reciprocal connections from area 21a reach the pulvinar, closing the CT loop. Taken together, results of our model suggest that the pulvinar shows a bi-stable spiking activity, oscillatory or regular asynchronous spiking, whose responses are gated by the different activation of cortico-pulvinar projections from lower to higher-order areas such as areas 17 and 21a.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".