Bilateral Alignment of Receptive Fields in the Olfactory Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Each olfactory cortical hemisphere receives ipsilateral odor information directly from the olfactory bulb and contralateral information indirectly from the other cortical hemisphere. Since neural projections to the olfactory cortex (OC) are disordered and nontopographic, spatial information cannot be used to align projections from the two sides like in the visual cortex. Therefore, how bilateral information is integrated in individual cortical neurons is unknown. We have found, in mice, that the odor responses of individual neurons to selective stimulation of each of the two nostrils are significantly correlated, such that odor identity decoding optimized with information arriving from one nostril transfers very well to the other side. Nevertheless, these aligned responses are asymmetric enough to allow decoding of stimulus laterality. Computational analysis shows that such matched odor tuning is incompatible with purely random connections but is explained readily by Hebbian plasticity structuring bilateral connectivity. Our data reveal that despite the distributed and fragmented sensory representation in the OC, odor information across the two hemispheres is highly coordinated.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".