MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396701711 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.109919

Behavioral and cortical arousal from sleep, muscimol-induced coma, and anesthesia by direct optogenetic stimulation of cortical neurons

2024· article· en· W4396701711 on OpenAlexaff
Rong Mao, Matías Cavelli, Graham Findlay, Kort Driessen, Michael J. Peterson, William Marshall, Giulio Tononi, Chiara Cirelli

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicSleep and Wakefulness Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNational Institutes of HealthTiny Blue Dot FoundationTempleton World Charity FoundationU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsOptogeneticsMuscimolNeuroscienceArousalCortical neuronsStimulationComa (optics)Sleep (system call)Neuroscience of sleepWakefulnessAnesthesiaMedicinePsychologyElectroencephalographyInternal medicineGABAA receptorComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cerebral cortex is widely considered part of the neural substrate of consciousness, but direct causal evidence is missing. Here, we tested in mice whether optogenetic activation of cortical neurons in posterior parietal cortex (PtA) or medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) is sufficient for arousal from three behavioral states characterized by progressively deeper unresponsiveness: sleep, a coma-like state induced by muscimol injection in the midbrain, and deep sevoflurane-dexmedetomidine anesthesia. We find that cortical stimulation always awakens the mice from both NREM sleep and REM sleep, with PtA requiring weaker/shorter light pulses than mPFC. Moreover, in most cases light pulses produce both cortical activation (decrease in low frequencies) and behavioral arousal (recovery of the righting reflex) from brainstem coma, as well as cortical activation from anesthesia. These findings provide evidence that direct activation of cortical neurons is sufficient for behavioral and/or cortical arousal from sleep, brainstem coma, and anesthesia.

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 score0.461
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations12
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicSleep and Wakefulness ResearchFrench-language works237,207