Spinal processing of spatiotemporally diverse tactile stimuli: Implications for allodynia and spinal cord stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Touch is mistakenly perceived as painful when inhibition in the spinal dorsal horn (SDH) is weakened. Disinhibition un-gates a polysynaptic spinal circuit but why mechanical allodynia is predominantly evoked by certain stimuli, like dynamic brushing, remains unclear. To answer this, we incorporated receptive fields (RFs) into a computational model of the SDH to study the processing of stimuli with different spatiotemporal features. Broad stimuli normally suppress output spiking by engaging inhibition from the RF surround, but the efficacy of inhibition depends on the input’s temporal pattern. This is critical since excitatory and inhibitory spinal neurons are preferentially sensitive to synchronous and asynchronous input, respectively. Furthermore, spikes driven by synchronous input are resistant to feedforward inhibition. The combined results explain why broad dynamic touch (e.g. brush or vibration) evokes more allodynia than punctate static touch. Our results also show that asynchronous and spatially disordered input evoked by kilohertz-frequency spinal cord stimulation preferentially activates inhibitory neurons, thus explaining its anti-allodynic effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".