(cid:NN). The PDF this text was extracted from encodes 62 characters in a way that names no letter, so the extractor could not say what they were. The quotes keep them because a quote is reproduced exactly or it proves nothing — the marks are the source’s, not the tagging’s.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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| 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 |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| 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 |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
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 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim_type | method 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 | auditory thalamocortical synaptic transmission 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. status: the paper's own words: it is possible that | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The alternative explanation for the shell slice layer 1 sink (antidromically activated layer 5 corticotectal cells) cannot be excluded Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the layer 1 sink interpretation: IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THIS HYPOTHETICAL MODE OF ACTIVATION ACTUALLY OCCURS OR THAT DIRECT INPUT FROM THE NONPRIMARY AUDITORY THALAMUS HAD NO ROLE | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Because of that unresolved alternative, the authors advise caution in using the shell preparation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any use of the shell preparation while the alternative is unresolved: THUS AT PRESENT IT SHOULD BE USED WITH CAUTION | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The pharmacological design cannot isolate the AMPA/KA contribution, since APV was never given alone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any AMPA/KA conclusion from the pharmacology: THIS SUBTRACTIVE LOGIC CANNOT BE USED TO IMPLICATE AMPA/KA RECEPTORS BECAUSE APV WAS NEVER APPLIED BY ITSELF | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The synaptic order of the early response is unresolved Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the synaptic order of the early response: EXACTLY HOW MANY LINKS ARE INVOLVED IN THE EARLY RESPONSE REMAINS TO BE DETERMINED | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | A measured quantity is stated not to be comparable across studies, because its visibility depends on method and criteria. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any comparison of IPSP amplitudes between this study and another: the authors state | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The conventional stimulation method is stated to be possibly unreliable for the purpose it is used for. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any result attributing a response to thalamocortical input on the basis of columnar stimulation: the authors state their MG-evoked profiles differ from those produced by conventional columnar stimulation, which may not be a reliable means of selectively activating thalamocortical inputs | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Two stimulation sites are reported not to activate the same synapses, with different laminar profiles. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any treatment of on-beam and MG stimulation as interchangeable probes: they are stated not to activate the same sets of synapses in cortex, and to evoke different laminar profiles | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The AMPA/KA conclusion is conditional on an assumption the authors state is difficult to prove. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claim that AMPA/KA receptors mediate transmission at these synapses: it follows if one assumes the fast EPSP in the middle layers is a monosynaptic event, and the authors state it is difficult to prove that a response is monosynaptic | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Whether the preparation's evoked activation resembles the intact system is stated to be undetermined. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any inference from these evoked responses to sound-driven cortical activity: the authors state it remains to be determined whether the activation produced by MG stimulation represents a natural pattern similar to that produced by acoustic stimulation in vivo | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Inhibition may be incompletely developed at the age used, indicated by the marker staining in this material. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any absolute inhibitory strength taken from these recordings: cortical inhibitory systems are known not to be fully developed in juvenile rodents, and the modest cortical PV labeling observed here is stated to indicate it | limitations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| controls | on-beam and MG-evoked IPSPs compared DIRECTLY WITHIN THE SAME SLICES rather than across the preparation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: preparation-dependent differences - slice health, cutting angle, anything that varies between preparations and would otherwise be read as a difference between the two pathways · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | a re-analysis restricted to the SEVEN CELLS in which MG-evoked EPSPs were at least as strong as on-beam EPSPs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: weaker MG excitation as the explanation of weaker MG inhibition - if the thalamic pathway simply drove the slice less hard, smaller IPSPs would follow with no difference in inhibition itself · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | columnar stimulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: columnar stimulation | concepts[0] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | thalamocortical inputs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: thalamocortical inputs | concepts[1] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | MG stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: MG stimuli | concepts[2] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | on-beam stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: on-beam stimuli | concepts[3] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | IPSPs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: IPSPs | concepts[4] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | excitatory thalamic projections Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: excitatory thalamic projections | concepts[5] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | cortical inhibitory interneurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cortical inhibitory interneurons | concepts[6] | the paper's words | |
| senses | an IPSP amplitude, across papers - NOT A COMPARABLE QUANTITY: whether an IPSP can be observed at all, and how large it is, depends heavily on methodology and criteria, so the same named measurement in two studies is two measurements and the authors state the comparison is difficult 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 | columnar (on-beam) stimulation - NOT A SELECTIVE THALAMOCORTICAL PROBE: it is used to activate thalamocortical inputs, and the authors state it may not be a reliable means of doing so selectively, because MG and on-beam stimuli do not activate the same sets of synapses 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 | the AMPA/KA finding - HELD UP BY AN ASSUMPTION, NOT A CONTROL: the subtractive logic could not be used because APV was never applied alone, so the conclusion follows only if the fast EPSP is a monosynaptic event, which the authors state is difficult to prove 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 | the early IPSPs - CORTICAL IN ROUTE, INFERRED FROM A BLOCKER RATHER THAN FROM THE RESPONSE: a direct inhibitory thalamic projection is ruled out because an AMPA/KA antagonist blocked them, and the remaining account is that excitatory thalamic projections drove cortical interneurons which then synapsed on the recorded cells; the paper states this as likely, not as shown Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | builds-on → Agmon and Connors (1991) somatosensory thalamocortical slice preparation 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 → Metherate and Cruikshank (1999), the authors' own initial feasibility study in rat and mouse slices 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 → Barth and MacDonald (1996) finding that nonlemniscal stimulation evokes cortical gamma band activity 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 | |
| concept_edges | MG stimuli —contrasted-with→ on-beam stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: which synapses they activate, and the laminar profile they evoke · strength of the relation: 1 also in: MG stimuli · on-beam stimuli | concept_edges[0] | the tagger's words | |
| concept_edges | cortical inhibitory interneurons —causes→ IPSPs Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.8 also in: cortical inhibitory interneurons · IPSPs | concept_edges[1] | 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. about this quote: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:6). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[0] | 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. about this quote: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:2), (cid:6), (cid:9). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. also in: t-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:10), (cid:3), (cid:4), (cid:9). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. also in: mean | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | An in vitro mouse brain preparation can preserve functionally intact thalamocortical connections from the MGv to auditory 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 | Auditory thalamocortical transmission is carried by both AMPA/kainate and NMDA glutamate receptors. 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 | Every primary slice analysed showed a dominant current sink in cortical layers 3-4 after medial geniculate stimulation. 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 | Thalamus-evoked responses differ from those of conventional columnar stimulation, indicating columnar stimulation may not reliably activate thalamocortical inputs selectively. 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 | A second 'shell' slice is presented in which subcortical stimulation appears to selectively activate synapses in superficial layer 1 of temporal cortex. 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 | Tracing confirmed that layer 5 corticotectal axons pass through the shell stimulation region on their way to the inferior colliculus. 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 | on-beam stimulation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: on-beam stimulation | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | early response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: early response | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | late responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: late responses | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | primary slice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: primary slice | content_tags.definitions[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | shell slice Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: shell slice | content_tags.definitions[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | stimulus intensity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:2), (cid:3), (cid:9). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. also in: stimulus intensity | content_tags.variables[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | current source density Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: current source density | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | amplitudes of the early responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: amplitudes of the early responses | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 66 cells / 24 slices — number of intracellularly recorded layer 3-4 neurons and the number of primary slices they came from 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 | 4.0 ± 0.1 ms — mean onset latency of the intracellular early response, statistically indistinguishable from the middle-layer CSD sink latency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:3), (cid:9). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. · value source note: The value is written with the paper's own symbol (±). Our copy of the text prints it as '(cid:9)' ('4.0 (cid:9) 0.1 ms'), because the PDF's text layer maps its maths characters to the wrong codes. The value is read from the PDF, page 8. | content_tags.quantities[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 16/16 — proportion of histologically checked primary slices whose top contained at least part of the ventral medial geniculate 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 | 15/20 — fraction of tested cells that displayed an inhibitory postsynaptic potential following the initial EPSP 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 | 6.0 ± 0.2 ms — mean onset latency of the shell-slice layer 1 surface sink, longer than the infragranular sink latency Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: DAMAGED GLYPHS IN THIS QUOTE: (cid:6), (cid:9). These are raw PDF font glyph indices that leaked out in place of the characters they stand for - usually a mathematical operator. The quote is verbatim to the staged text and its anchor is sound; the STAGED TEXT is what is damaged. NOT repaired: the cid-to-character mapping is defined by the font embedded in that particular PDF, so guessing it would produce a clean and unverifiable quote. Repair needs the source PDF and is a re-staging job. · value source note: The value is written with the paper's own symbol (±). Our copy of the text prints it as '(cid:9)' ('6.0 (cid:9) 0.2 ms'), because the PDF's text layer maps its maths characters to the wrong codes. The value is read from the PDF, page 15. | content_tags.quantities[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 22 — number of primary slices with laminar CSD analysis, all of which showed a dominant middle-layer sink Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[5] | 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.