MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Auditory Neurons in the Dorsal Cortex of the Inferior Colliculus: Responses to Contralateral Tone Bursts and Modulations by the Auditory Cortex

2009· article· en· W9393686 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ariana Lumani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bacteriology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Graduate EducationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsInferior colliculusAuditory cortexNeuroscienceDorsumCortex (anatomy)Tone (literature)Inferior ColliculiTone burstCognitive neuroscience of musicAnatomyPsychologyAudiologyBiologyMedicineArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The inferior colliculus plays a key role in auditory processing. In the current study I used the albino rat, Rattus norvegicus, as an animal model to investigate auditory responses in single neurons in the dorsomedial subdivision of the inferior colliculus (ICd). My results reveal that ICd neurons exhibit various temporal firing patterns and long and variable first spike latencies. These neurons displayed a variety of frequency-tuning curves. Both monotonic and non-monotonic rate-level functions were present in these neurons. ICd neurons displayed stimulus-specific adaptation by reducing the strength of firing during repetitive tone burst stimulation but restored their responses when the quality of sound was changed. Functional decortication changed the strength of firing in ICd neurons, suggesting these neurons were controlled by the auditory cortex. My results suggest that the ICd may provide a gating mechanism that helps the auditory system to selectively process novel sounds in the acoustic environment.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of BacteriologySame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207