standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| second reading | alternatives | an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees |
| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| transfer | transfers | a method or concept carried in from another field |
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 16 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | how the timescale of neural activity changes from midbrain to cortex, and what each stage can therefore encode Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | whether the slow timescales that cost the cortex temporal precision are what let it encode global patterns that subcortical stations cannot Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | shows the auditory hierarchy is inverted between two encoding jobs - fidelity for local intervals falls from IC to A1 while sensitivity to global rhythm appears only in A1 - and that the cortical signal is carried by spike timing with no change in firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | hierarchical temporal coding in the central auditory pathway Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[0] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: the paper's own words: may reflect | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | the cortex reads regularity by compressing its own spike decay constant, not by changing how much it fires Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the timescale that changes is about 40x faster than the stimulus feature driving it, so the sensitivity must be inherited from other circuits rather than computed by the unit itself Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | candidate source: dendrite-targeting somatostatin or NDNF interneurons that dampen recurrent excitation and track slow state variables Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.5 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | alternative source: corticothalamic feedback damping thalamocortical input through the thalamic reticular nucleus, suggested by the weaker MGB effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.5 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | stimulus-specific adaptation, the nearest neighbouring phenomenon, works instead by synaptic fatigue for standard inputs while deviant inputs stay unadapted Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | peripheral speed is a design constraint: the morphologies and synapses that give the early stages sub-millisecond precision are what make them unsuited to slow structure Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Cortical sensitivity to regularity did not extend to longer or more complex cycles, so the integration window demonstrated is bounded at roughly 0.8-1.6 s. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the regularity result, with its ceiling measured: SINGLE UNIT SENSITIVITY TO REGULARITY IS LIMITED TO STIMULUS TIMESCALES ON THE ORDER OF 4-8 REPEATING ELEMENTS OR 0.8-1.6s | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Only A1 in passively listening mice was studied; higher-order fields and behaviourally engaged listening remain to be tested. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the generality beyond A1 and beyond passive listening: it would be important to test the CANDIDATE HIGHER-ORDER AREAS ... PARTICULARLY WHEN MICE ARE BEHAVIORALLY ENGAGED | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The circuit that actually confers sensitivity to the ~800 ms regularity is not identified; candidate local and long-range mechanisms are only conjectured. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any mechanistic reading: the timescale dynamics ARE LIKELY THE PRODUCT OF OTHER LOCAL OR LONG-RANGE CIRCUITS THAT RESPOND MORE DIRECTLY TO THE CHANGE IN PREDICTABILITY - the circuit that confers the sensitivity is not identified | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the cortical sensitivity has a measured ceiling - it holds for cycles of four to eight intervals and is gone at twelve Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - the effect holds for cycles of four to eight and is gone beyond | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | passive listening only; whether engagement in a task extends the integration window is untested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[1] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1], for engagement specifically - only passive listening was tested | limitations[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | only A1 was recorded, so the higher-order fields where longer regularities might be encoded were not sampled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1], for anatomy specifically - only A1 was recorded, so the higher-order fields where longer regularities might be encoded were not sampled | limitations[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | cell class is inferred from spike waveform width, not from a molecular marker Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: every result reported by cell class: REGULAR and FAST SPIKING are assigned by THE TROUGH TO PEAK INTERVAL ... EXCEEDING 0.6ms, a waveform proxy rather than a molecular identification | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the neural-timescale metric (decay constant of an exponential fit to the spike-count autocorrelation), developed for hierarchies of visual cortical areas and here applied to the auditory pathway Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | the tagger's words | |
| transfers | the autocorrelation-decay measure of neural timescale, and the expectation that it lengthens up a hierarchy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the paradigm of contrasting repeating with random acoustic patterns Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the binary support vector machine, used here as a readout of ensemble state Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a random-random stimulus, keeping the stimulus random for all 50 post-baseline cycles instead of switching from rhythmic to random (Figure S4 - three sentences describe this one control, recorded once) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: the ordinal arrangement of random-following-rhythmic, rather than the change in regularity, as the cause of the spike-patterning differences · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | repeating the whole analysis on cycle-order-shuffled data, for every recording in all three brain regions - the exclusion is carried by the word shuffling rather than spelled out, hence the lower weight Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: structure that would appear in the analysis regardless of the true ordering of cycles · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.75 | the tagger's words |
| senses | neural timescale = the decay constant of a single unit's spike-count autocorrelation, about 20ms in A1 - NOT the window over which the unit integrates, which is 800ms; the paper states the 40x gap itself Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | regular, sense 1 = a property of the stimulus sequence (intervals repeating in a fixed order), the paper's independent variable Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | regular, sense 2 = a waveform class of neuron (trough-to-peak > 0.6ms, putative pyramidal); same word, unrelated referent, both used throughout Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | context = the global statistics of the stimulus sequence (random vs rhythmic), not behavioural or task context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | tonotopy here is an instrument, not an object: the frequency gradient and its reversal are used to certify that the probe is in A1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | hierarchy = the ascending anatomical pathway IC to MGB to A1, ordered by synaptic distance from the cochlea Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading reaching the same value. Recorded: existence — note: a second reading reaching the same value from a different sentence. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: simultaneous three-probe extracellular single-unit recording from IC, MGB and A1 of awake head-fixed mice, with template-matching interval decoding and an SVM on principal components of ensemble spiking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: electrophysiology — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.method | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | phenomenon: emergent cortical sensitivity to the regularity of a sequence of intervals, expressed as compression of the spike decay constant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: hierarchical temporal coding in the central auditory pathway — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.phenomenon | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | replicates → previously documented progressive loss of temporal fidelity along the ascending auditory pathway (reviews cited as refs 1, 2, 4) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | extends → prior animal work on stimulus-specific adaptation (SSA) and contrast gain control (refs 17, 20-26) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → the neural-timescale measure (autocorrelation decay constant) established across visual cortical hierarchies (refs 6, 7) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | builds-on → human work on cortical activity and perceptual awareness of complex repeating acoustic patterns (refs 15, 16) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | distinguishes-from → stimulus-specific adaptation and contrast gain control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | distinguishes-from → SSA and contrast gain control, on anatomical distribution Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS ANATOMICAL DISTRIBUTION. 'while SSA, contrast gain control or other neural signatures of stimulus context changes are robustly expressed in the A1, Quotation withheld.' The known adaptation phenomena appear at every level; this one does not - so a cortical result that resembles them is distinguished by WHERE ELSE IT CAN BE FOUND rather than by what it looks like. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | distinguishes-from → rate-based accounts of context-dependent adaptation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHAT CARRIES THE SIGNAL - RATE OR TEMPORAL PATTERN. 'Quotation withheld.' The existing accounts are not denied their data; they are denied coverage of a signal their measure cannot see. | claim_relations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → human work on cortical responses to repeating acoustic patterns Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[7] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → visual-cortex measurements of neural timescale by autocorrelation decay Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | confirms → prior reports of declining temporal fidelity along the ascending auditory pathway Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | neural timescale —operationalised-as→ decay time constant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: imported from visual-cortex hierarchy work; the quote names the source field as well as the measure also in: neural timescale · decay time constant | concept_edges[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | stimulus regularity —operationalised-as→ inter-burst intervals repeated across cycles Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span writes 'regular contexts' / intervals that 'repeated across cycles', not 'stimulus regularity'. | concept_edges[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | A1 —operationalised-as→ best frequency gradient Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: tonotopy as the criterion for having reached A1 - the same word is the object of study elsewhere in this corpus also in: A1 · best frequency gradient | concept_edges[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | regular spiking —operationalised-as→ trough to peak interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: cut at 0.6ms; fast spiking is the same measure on the other side of it also in: regular spiking · trough to peak interval | concept_edges[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | fast spiking —same-as→ putative parvalbumin-expressing interneuron Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.6 — the record marks this weak · note: an identity asserted by apposition and hedged by 'putative'; the evidence for it is waveform width, not a marker | concept_edges[4] | 0.7 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | context sensitivity —distinct-from→ SSA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: discriminated by anatomical distribution: SSA is expressed in IC and MGB too, this is absent in IC also in: context sensitivity · SSA | concept_edges[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | context sensitivity —distinct-from→ contrast gain control Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: same demarcation paragraph; its fourth point, rate versus timing, is carried in claim relations also in: context sensitivity · contrast gain control | concept_edges[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | SSA —is-a→ spike rate adaptation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: SSA · spike rate adaptation | concept_edges[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | decay constant —distinct-from→ mean firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: dissociated empirically in the same units and the same 100ms window, not merely conceptually also in: decay constant · mean firing rate | concept_edges[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | A1 —contrasted-with→ IC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: on rhythm classification the cortex succeeds and the midbrain fails - the reverse of the interval-decoding ordering | concept_edges[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | A1 —contrasted-with→ MGB Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 | concept_edges[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | slow neural timescales —causes→ interfere with precise temporal coding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: the cost. Same property and same sentence as the edge below, opposite valence - the sign lives in the target, not in a note
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but slow timescales 'MAY interfere' with precise temporal coding; causes is hedged. | concept_edges[11] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | slow neural timescales —causes→ cortical advantage Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: the capability: an advantage over subcortical stations for encoding slowly evolving features
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the sluggish processing 'COULD SUGGEST' a cortical advantage; causes is hedged. also in: slow neural timescales · cortical advantage | concept_edges[12] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | rhythmic patterns —causes→ shorter decay constants Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: the headline effect, stated in the same sentence that rules out any change in mean firing rate also in: rhythmic patterns · shorter decay constants | concept_edges[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | A1 —part-of→ IC-MGB-A1 hierarchy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: A1 · IC-MGB-A1 hierarchy | concept_edges[14] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | IC —part-of→ ascending auditory pathway Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: IC · ascending auditory pathway | concept_edges[15] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Kruskal-Wallis test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Kruskal-Wallis test | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | effect size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effect size | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | normality test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: normality test | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multiple-comparison correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multiple-comparison correction | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | principal component analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: principal component analysis | content_tags.statistics[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | support vector machine classification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[9] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cross-validation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cross-validation | content_tags.statistics[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Kruskal-Wallis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Kruskal-Wallis | content_tags.statistics[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Cliff's delta Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Cliff's delta | content_tags.statistics[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Bonferroni correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Bonferroni correction | content_tags.statistics[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | one-sample t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: one-sample t-test | content_tags.statistics[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Cohen's d Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Cohen's d | content_tags.statistics[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | two-way repeated measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: two-way repeated measures ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | principal components analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: principal components analysis | content_tags.statistics[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | support vector machine Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: support vector machine | content_tags.statistics[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Neural timescales, measured as the autocorrelation decay constant, roughly double from auditory midbrain to cortex. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Accuracy of decoding the interval between two noise bursts falls progressively from midbrain to thalamus to cortex. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Only cortical ensemble activity, not thalamic or midbrain activity, allowed a classifier to tell rhythmic from random interval sequences. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Rhythmic context shortened neural timescales strongly and reliably in A1, weakly in MGB, and not at all in IC. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Regularity was encoded by the arrangement of spikes in time rather than by any change in mean firing rate. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Cortical sensitivity to regularity was bounded, disappearing for rhythmic cycles longer than roughly 4 to 8 repeating intervals. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | The timescale compression occurred in putative pyramidal (regular-spiking) neurons across layers but not in putative parvalbumin interneurons. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | A random-random control sequence produced chance-level classification and no timescale change, ruling out simple stimulus-order effects. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | neural timescales roughly double from midbrain to cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the median interval-decoding threshold rises from 1.4ms in IC to 16ms in MGB to 64ms in A1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | ensemble spiking distinguishes rhythmic from random sequences in A1 but not in MGB or IC Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the discriminating signal is spike arrangement in time; mean firing rate does not change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | in A1, decay constants were slightly reduced for rhythms of eight repeating intervals and did not differ between random and rhythmic epochs with twelve Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the timescale compression appears in regular-spiking units across all A1 layers and not at all in fast-spiking units Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | under regular input the cortex comes to resemble the thalamus on the two timing measures Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[14] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a random-to-random control produced near-chance classification, ruling out the ordinal position of the epoch Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[15] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | decoder accuracy threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: decoder accuracy threshold | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | neural timescale asymmetry index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neural timescale asymmetry index | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | spike waveform classification Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spike waveform classification | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | SSA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: SSA | content_tags.definitions[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | neural timescale Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neural timescale | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | neural timescale asymmetry index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neural timescale asymmetry index | content_tags.definitions[6] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | template matching Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: template matching | content_tags.definitions[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | regular spiking Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regular spiking | content_tags.definitions[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | hierarchical stage Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: hierarchical stage | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | cycle size Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cycle size | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | neural timescale Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: neural timescale | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | decoder threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: decoder threshold | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean firing rate | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | random-random stimulus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: random-random stimulus | content_tags.variables[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | stimulus context Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: stimulus context | content_tags.variables[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | spike decay time constant Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: spike decay time constant | content_tags.variables[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | sound-evoked firing rate Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sound-evoked firing rate | content_tags.variables[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 1.4ms, 16ms, 64ms — median interval-decoding threshold in inferior colliculus, medial geniculate body and primary auditory cortex respectively Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 0.8s — duration of one complete stimulus cycle, the minimum integration window needed to detect regularity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 40x — how much slower the stimulus feature (800ms rhythm) is than the cortical spiking timescale (20ms) it modulates Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | F = 20.95, p = 6x10 −9 — main effect of brain structure on interval classification accuracy in the mixed-design ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 5/164 — number of mice and single units contributing A1 timescale measurements in the random versus rhythmic comparison Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 1.4ms, 16ms, 64ms — median interval-decoding threshold in IC, MGB and A1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0.8 - 1.6s — the span of stimulus regularity A1 single units are sensitive to Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | approximately 40x — how much slower the driving stimulus feature is than the timescale that reports it (800ms vs 20ms) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 0.6ms — trough-to-peak cut between regular- and fast-spiking units Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 200ms — mean inter-burst interval, with no interval below 100ms so that forward suppression cannot contribute Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 20 ms, 70 dB SPL, 1-64 kHz — duration, level and bandwidth of the frozen noise burst used throughout Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | less than 5% — permitted refractory-period violations for a cluster to count as a single unit Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 6-8 weeks — age of the C57BL6 mice at recording Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[12] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.