MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394805838 · doi:10.1101/2024.04.11.589131

Distinct mechanisms of visual and sound adaptation in the cat visual cortex

2024· preprint· en· W4394805838 on OpenAlexafffund
Yassine Yahia Belkacemi, Nayan Chanauria, Oliver Flouty, Stéphane Molotchnikoff, Vishal Bharmauria

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalOntario Brain InstituteUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVisual cortexStimulus (psychology)Adaptation (eye)Sensory systemNeuroscienceStimulus modalityAuditory cortexVisual N1Computer scienceVisual perceptionPsychologyCommunicationCognitive psychologyPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sensory areas exhibit modular selectivity to stimuli, but they can also respond to features outside of their basic modality. Several studies have shown cross-modal plastic modifications between visual and auditory cortices; however, the exact mechanisms of these modifications are yet not completely known. To this aim, we investigated the effect of 12 minutes of visual vs. sound adaptation [forceful application of a non-optimal stimulus to a neuron(s) under observation] on the infra- and supra-granular primary visual neurons (V1) of the cat ( Felis catus ). Previous reports showed that both protocols induced orientation tuning shifts, but sound increased the bandwidths. Here, we compared visual vs. sound adaptation effects, specifically analysing the raw tuning curves by computing the area under the curve (AUC) on a trial-by-trial basis. We report that sound adaptation elicited broader tuning curves accompanied with increased variance in the supra- and infra-granular layers, compared with visual adaptation. These findings suggest unique modulation of dendritic structure by distinct adaptation protocols, resulting in disparate tunings. We suggest that broader tuning curves after sound adaptation may keep the visual cortex prepared across a spectrum of abstract representations that match with visual stimuli.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→