MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392154756 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0000000000002012

Adaptation-induced sharpening of orientation tuning curves in the mouse visual cortex

2024· article· en· W4392154756 on OpenAlexaff
Afef Ouelhazi, Vishal Bharmauria, Stéphane Molotchnikoff

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSharpeningVisual cortexAdaptation (eye)Orientation (vector space)NeurosciencePsychologyCommunicationComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Orientation selectivity is an emergent property of visual neurons across species with columnar and noncolumnar organization of the visual cortex. The emergence of orientation selectivity is more established in columnar cortical areas than in noncolumnar ones. Thus, how does orientation selectivity emerge in noncolumnar cortical areas after an adaptation protocol? Adaptation refers to the constant presentation of a nonoptimal stimulus (adapter) to a neuron under observation for a specific time. Previously, it had been shown that adaptation has varying effects on the tuning properties of neurons, such as orientation, spatial frequency, motion and so on. BASIC METHODS: We recorded the mouse primary visual neurons (V1) at different orientations in the control (preadaptation) condition. This was followed by adapting neurons uninterruptedly for 12 min and then recording the same neurons postadaptation. An orientation selectivity index (OSI) for neurons was computed to compare them pre- and post-adaptation. MAIN RESULTS: We show that 12-min adaptation increases the OSI of visual neurons ( n = 113), that is, sharpens their tuning. Moreover, the OSI postadaptation increases linearly as a function of the OSI preadaptation. CONCLUSION: The increased OSI postadaptation may result from a specific dendritic neural mechanism, potentially facilitating the rapid learning of novel features.

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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207