MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133050111

Encoding of Touch: An Investigation into the Neural Representation of Tactile Stimuli

2021· dissertation· W7133050111 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dhekra Al-Basha

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2021
Typedissertation
Language
FieldNeuroscience
TopicTactile and Sensory Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsSomatosensory systemStimulus (psychology)OptogeneticsTransduction (biophysics)Neural codingEncoding (memory)ENCODEMechanoreceptor
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The encoding of touch starts at the periphery where the terminals of mechanosensitive neurons, called low threshold mechanoreceptors (LTMRs), convert mechanical forces into action potentials, or spikes. These spikes eventually propagate to the cortex where perception occurs. Here, I investigated how tactile stimuli are encoded in LTMRs and in somatosensory cortical neurons. LTMRs generate spikes in a two-step process: a transduction step where mechanical stimuli are converted into a local depolarization, or receptor potential, and a spike initiation step, where the local depolarization is transformed into spikes. While LTMR spike patterns in response to different tactile inputs have been investigated, the individual contributions of transduction and spike initiation have eluded investigation owing to the small size of LTMR terminals, which preclude direct recording. To overcome this limitation, I used a novel optogenetic approach to replace natural, hard-to-measure mechanopotentials with artificial, easy-to-control photopotentials. I discovered that slow-adapting type 2 (SA2) and rapid-adapting (RA) terminals have qualitatively different transduction and spike initiation properties, which is critical for spike-based coding of tactile input. In a subset of SA2 LTMRs, I also discovered integer-multiple-patterned spiking, comprising a fundamental interspike interval and multiples thereof. Using a combination of computational and experimental approaches, I showed that this pattern arises from intermittent failure of spike propagation. Because propagation failure was rare, I deduced that propagation in LTMRs is reliable while remaining energy efficient. Lastly, I investigated how cortical neurons encode tactile stimuli after inputs conveyed by functionally distinct LTMRs have converged. I showed that cortical neurons can simultaneously encode stimulus intensity in the rate of asynchronous spikes, and abrupt changes in stimulus intensity in the timing of synchronous spikes. The ability of neurons to simultaneously encode multiple stimulus features using different neural codes is an example of multiplexing. Similarly, I found that SA LTMRs are themselves capable of multiplexing. Deciphering the strategies by which neurons form multiplexed representations is needed to ultimately understand how information is decoded in downstream neural circuits. Taken together, these findings inform us how neurons generate and use spikes to represent tactile information.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.306 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicTactile and Sensory InteractionsFrench-language works237,207