MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316468884 · doi:10.7554/elife.79513

Inhibition is a prevalent mode of activity in the neocortex around awake hippocampal ripples in mice

2023· article· en· W4316468884 on OpenAlexafffund
Javad Karimi Abadchi, Zahra Rezaei, Thomas Knöpfel, Bruce L. McNaughton, Majid H. Mohajerani

Bibliographic record

VenueeLife · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersAlberta Prion Research InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeocortexNeuroscienceHippocampal formationExcitatory postsynaptic potentialGlutamate receptorRippleWakefulnessHippocampusElectrophysiologyCortex (anatomy)Premovement neuronal activityBiologyPsychologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialElectroencephalographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coordinated peri-ripple activity in the hippocampal-neocortical network is essential for mnemonic information processing in the brain. Hippocampal ripples likely serve different functions in sleep and awake states. Thus, the corresponding neocortical activity patterns may differ in important ways. We addressed this possibility by conducting voltage and glutamate wide-field imaging of the neocortex with concurrent hippocampal electrophysiology in awake mice. Contrary to our previously published sleep results, deactivation and activation were dominant in post-ripple neocortical voltage and glutamate activity, respectively, especially in the agranular retrosplenial cortex (aRSC). Additionally, the spiking activity of aRSC neurons, estimated by two-photon calcium imaging, revealed the existence of two subpopulations of excitatory neurons with opposite peri-ripple modulation patterns: one increases and the other decreases firing rate. These differences in peri-ripple spatiotemporal patterns of neocortical activity in sleep versus awake states might underlie the reported differences in the function of sleep versus awake ripples.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.253 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeLifeSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207