Responses to Pattern-Violating Visual Stimuli Evolve Differently Over Days in Somata and Distal Apical Dendrites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scientists have long conjectured that the neocortex learns patterns in sensory data to generate top-down predictions of upcoming stimuli. In line with this conjecture, different responses to pattern-matching vs pattern-violating visual stimuli have been observed in both spiking and somatic calcium imaging data. However, it remains unknown whether these pattern-violation signals are different between the distal apical dendrites, which are heavily targeted by top-down signals, and the somata, where bottom-up information is primarily integrated. Furthermore, it is unknown how responses to pattern-violating stimuli evolve over time as an animal gains more experience with them. Here, we address these unanswered questions by analyzing responses of individual somata and dendritic branches of layer 2/3 and layer 5 pyramidal neurons tracked over multiple days in primary visual cortex of awake, behaving female and male mice. We use sequences of Gabor patches with patterns in their orientations to create pattern-matching and pattern-violating stimuli, and two-photon calcium imaging to record neuronal responses. Many neurons in both layers show large differences between their responses to pattern-matching and pattern-violating stimuli. Interestingly, these responses evolve in opposite directions in the somata and distal apical dendrites, with somata becoming less sensitive to pattern-violating stimuli and distal apical dendrites more sensitive. These differences between the somata and distal apical dendrites may be important for hierarchical computation of sensory predictions and learning, since these two compartments tend to receive bottom-up and top-down information, respectively.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".