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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 5 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 | the circuit by which locomotion increases visual responses in mouse V1 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 | what pathway carries behavioural state into sensory cortex to produce the gain change 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 | identifies VIP interneurons as the necessary and sufficient element, driven by nicotinic input from basal forebrain, and proposes the circuit as a general mechanism for state-dependent cortical gain control 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 | mechanism 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 | locomotion-driven gain modulation of visual cortex 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. | mechanisms[2] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | VIP neurons inhibit SST neurons, releasing neighbouring excitatory cells - a disinhibitory circuit 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 | acetylcholine from the nucleus of the diagonal band depolarises VIP neurons directly through nicotinic receptors Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | PV heterogeneity is explained as a secondary effect: VIP inhibits SST, SST inhibits PV, and PV also receives local excitation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the state signal is carried by a pathway distinct from the sensory one, which is why VIP responses persist in darkness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | the kinetics are slow and lack a fast component, so the receptor is likely non-alpha7 nicotinic 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 | photolytic damage of individual VIP cells by restricting the excitation beam to one cell diameter at a time, sparing nearby cells Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Nicotinic blockade did not fully abolish the locomotion response, so other inputs must contribute. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the sufficiency of the nicotinic account: THE RESPONSE OF VIP NEURONS TO LOCOMOTION ... WAS NOT COMPLETELY ABOLISHED BY NACHRS ANTAGONISTS, INDICATING THAT other inputs contribute | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Rabies tracing is inefficient, so additional neuromodulatory inputs may have gone undetected. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the completeness of the input map only: inputs MIGHT NOT BE REVEALED DUE TO THE LOW EFFICIENCY OF rabies tracing | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | In the barrel-cortex experiment whiskers were not immobilised, so sensory input was not fully removed. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the barrel-cortex control specifically: ALTHOUGH THE MICE WERE RUNNING IN DARKNESS WITH NO VISUAL INPUT, THE WHISKERS WERE INTACT AND THE MICE WERE FREE TO MOVE THEM - the sensory input was not actually removed | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The auditory-cortex recordings were made without adequate isolation of auditory input. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the auditory-cortex recordings only: auditory input was not adequately isolated, so the modality-general reading of those data is not supported by that experiment | limitations[3] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | nicotinic blockade did not completely abolish the locomotion response, so other inputs exist Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[0] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - nicotinic blockade did not completely abolish the locomotion response, so other inputs contribute | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | rabies tracing is low-efficiency, so other neuromodulatory inputs may simply not have been revealed 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] - rabies tracing is low-efficiency, so inputs may simply not have been revealed | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | in the barrel cortex experiment the whiskers were intact and free to move, so the result may not isolate locomotion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: limitations[2] · what this limits: the same scope as limitations[2] - in the barrel-cortex experiment the whiskers were intact and free to move, so sensory input was not fully removed | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the auditory setup was far from ideal at isolating auditory input 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[3] - the auditory setup was far from ideal at isolating auditory input | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the basal forebrain responds to many things besides locomotion, including females and water Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the locomotion-specificity of the basal forebrain account: THE BASAL FOREBRAIN RESPONDS TO MANY DIFFERENT STIMULI AND MAY INFLUENCE CORTICAL RESPONSE BY MODULATING DIFFERENT POPULATIONS OF NEURONS | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | other groups report different effects of locomotion on SST neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the agreement with the wider literature on SST cells: DIFFERENT EFFECTS ON SST NEURONS HAVE ALSO BEEN REPORTED elsewhere, so the consensus this result matches is not unanimous | limitations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the SST-hyperpolarisation-during-whisking result, used as evidence that the same circuit may run in another modality Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | rabies virus monosynaptic retrograde tracing, imported to find the afferents of a genetically defined cell type Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| controls | identified inhibitory neuron types recorded during stationary periods and locomotion, with and without visual stimulation, and compared against unlabelled neurons in the same recordings Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a change that follows from locomotion or from the visual stimulus alone rather than from the cell type - the unlabelled neurons see the same two manipulations · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | gain control here means a multiplicative change in visual response with no change in orientation selectivity - the OSI is checked and unchanged in both the locomotion and the optogenetic case 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 | behavioural state is operationalised as running speed on a floating ball, with stationary and running separated at 1 cm/s Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[1] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| senses | central rather than peripheral is established by a negative control in LGN, not by an argument 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 | VIP, SST and PV are genetic labels here, not physiological inferences - the paper says electrophysiology alone cannot distinguish these cell types Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | claim_type: mechanism 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: mechanism — 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: two-photon calcium imaging in running head-fixed mice, local pharmacology, slice recording, rabies retrograde tracing, optogenetic activation and photolytic ablation 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: behavioural-state gain control in sensory cortex 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: locomotion-driven gain modulation of visual cortex — 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 → Niell and Stryker, 2010 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 | builds-on → Pfeffer et al., 2013 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 | extends → Lee et al., 2010 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 | synthesises-with → Pi et al. 2013 on VIP disinhibition in prefrontal and auditory cortex - a paper independently tagged in this corpus Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → Niell and Stryker's finding that locomotion increases V1 gain without changing selectivity 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 | supports → Pfeffer et al. on VIP neurons inhibiting SST neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the expectation of substantial direct motor cortex input to V1 VIP neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | distinguishes-from → the run-onset neurons of Keller et al., which respond only transiently Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS TRANSIENT VERSUS SUSTAINED RESPONSE. 'Quotation withheld, while we find that VIP neurons resp[ond throughout].' The identification of a cell class in an earlier paper is disputed on a response-time-course criterion - so the two literatures may be about different populations, and only the time course says so. | claim_relations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → its own cholinergic account, by noting noradrenergic input as a likely additional source 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 |
| concept_edges | VIP —causes→ SST Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: inhibits. and the same quote records that other groups report different effects on SST - the disagreement travels with the edge | concept_edges[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | locomotion —causes→ VIP Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: locomotion · VIP | concept_edges[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | basal forebrain —causes→ VIP 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: largely through nicotinic inputs; blockade cut the response by more than two thirds but did not abolish it also in: basal forebrain · VIP | concept_edges[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | VIP —causes→ 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: the rare corpus case where BOTH necessity and sufficiency are demonstrated rather than inferred
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but VIP activation is necessary and sufficient for the locomotion-induced INCREASE in visual response; 'gain control' is not in the span. also in: VIP · gain control | concept_edges[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | SST —causes→ PV Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: inhibits; invoked to explain why PV responses are heterogeneous rather than uniform | concept_edges[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Mann-Whitney U test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Mann-Whitney U test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | paired t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired t-test | content_tags.statistics[2] | 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[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon rank-sum test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon rank-sum test | content_tags.statistics[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Wilcoxon signed-rank test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Wilcoxon signed-rank test | content_tags.statistics[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: standard error of the mean | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | zero-time cross-correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: zero-time cross-correlation | content_tags.statistics[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Mann-Whitney U-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Mann-Whitney U-test | content_tags.statistics[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | paired Wilcoxon signed rank test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired Wilcoxon signed rank test | content_tags.statistics[9] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | one-way ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: one-way ANOVA | content_tags.statistics[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | VIP neurons in mouse V1 are activated in tight correlation with locomotion even in complete darkness, unlike nearly all neighbouring non-VIP neurons. 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 | Visual stimulation did not increase but significantly reduced the cross-correlation between VIP activity and locomotion. 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 | SST neuron activity was on average negatively correlated with locomotion at time zero. 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 | Blocking nicotinic cholinergic receptors locally in V1 removed most of the VIP locomotion response, while blocking glutamatergic input did not. 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 | Monosynaptic rabies tracing identified the cholinergic nucleus of the diagonal band of Broca in basal forebrain as a direct input source to upper-layer V1 VIP neurons. 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 | Optogenetically driving VIP neurons in stationary mice reproduced the locomotion-induced gain increase, and selectively killing VIP neurons removed it. 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 gain-and-loss experiments together establish VIP activation as both necessary and sufficient for the locomotion-driven enhancement of excitatory visual responses. 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 | VIP neuron responses in primary auditory cortex were also associated with locomotor activity. 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 | Running increases visual responses without changing orientation selectivity. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | VIP neurons track locomotion in complete darkness, when neighbouring neurons show only spontaneous activity 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 | VIP neurons are the majority of locomotion-responsive cells in V1 in the absence of visual stimulation 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 | visual stimulation does not increase, and in fact reduces, the coupling between VIP activity and locomotion 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 | VIP, PV and SST neurons differ significantly from one another in their locomotion coupling 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 | SST neurons are suppressed by locomotion 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 | nicotinic antagonists dramatically reduced VIP responses to locomotion without blocking nearby non-VIP visual responses Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the nucleus of the diagonal band is a prominent monosynaptic input to upper-layer V1 VIP neurons 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 | at most very sparse direct input from motor cortex was found Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[16] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | optogenetic VIP activation in stationary mice raised visual responses by about a third without changing selectivity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[17] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | photolytic damage to VIP cells cut the locomotion enhancement from 86% to 12% Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[18] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | VIP activation in anaesthetised mice does not change visual responses, as the circuit predicts Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[19] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | locomotion modulation index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: locomotion modulation index | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | running state Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: running state | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | central rather than peripheral Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: central rather than peripheral | content_tags.definitions[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | behavioral state Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioral state | content_tags.variables[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | orientation selectivity index (OSI) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: orientation selectivity index (OSI) | content_tags.variables[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | running speed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: running speed | content_tags.variables[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | locomotion modulation index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: locomotion modulation index | content_tags.variables[8] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | orientation selectivity index Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: orientation selectivity index | content_tags.variables[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 37±7% — Average increase in the calcium response of imaged V1 neurons during running, replicating the electrophysiological locomotion effect 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 | 0.47±0.03, n=28 — Mean zero-lag cross-correlation between VIP-neuron calcium signal and running speed in darkness 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 | 20/28 versus 3/77 — VIP neurons versus non-VIP neurons whose zero-lag correlation with locomotion exceeded 0.4 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 | 0.58±0.03 (n=21), 0.30±0.06 (n=40), −0.19±0.05 (n=11) — Zero-lag locomotion cross-correlations for VIP, PV and SST neurons respectively 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 | 155.0±34.8% — Average increase in the GCaMP6 signal of VIP neurons aligned to the start of running events 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 | 32.4±8.3%, n=19, p <0.02 — Increase in the visual response of layer 2/3 neurons produced by optogenetic activation of VIP neurons in stationary mice 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 | |
| content_tags | 86±16% versus 12±6% — Locomotion-induced enhancement of non-VIP neuron activity before versus after photolytic damage of nearby VIP neurons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 12.41±0.98mV vs. 2.61±0.26mV — Acetylcholine-induced depolarisation of VIP neurons in slices before versus after nicotinic receptor blockade under TTX Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 37 plus or minus 7% increase in calcium response with running — reproduction of the electrophysiological effect by imaging 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 | VIP 0.58 plus or minus 0.03, PV 0.30 plus or minus 0.06, SST -0.19 plus or minus 0.05 — zero-time cross-correlation with locomotion by cell type 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 | 20/28 VIP versus 3/77 non-VIP neurons above 0.4 correlation — how specific the locomotion response is to VIP cells 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 | 32.4 plus or minus 8.3% — increase in visual response from optogenetic VIP activation 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 | 86 plus or minus 16% before versus 12 plus or minus 6% after photo damage — locomotion enhancement lost when VIP cells are destroyed 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 |
| content_tags | 0 to 1 neurons per mouse in motor cortex against more than 50 labelled VIP neurons — the near-absence of direct motor input Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[13] | 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.