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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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 6 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 | whether divisive and subtractive suppression can be assigned to particular interneuron types at all 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 | how activating somatostatin- or parvalbumin-positive interneurons changes auditory cortical responses to tones 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 | the suppression type specific to an interneuron class can be masked by the network it is embedded in, so the property is not a property of the class 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 | divisive versus subtractive cortical inhibition 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 | most cortical input is intracortical, so changing inhibition changes the firing of a neuron's own inputs as well as the neuron, producing effects single-neuron models do not predict 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 | in a network model, threshold nonlinearities plus the strength of suppression of a cell's inputs determine whether the observed effect looks divisive, subtractive or both 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 | the character of suppression in downstream neurons is set by their own thresholds and connections rather than by what happened upstream 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 | further sources of the same masking are available: interneurons are themselves tuned and receive organised excitation, and many types inhibit one another Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | local subnetworks with different intrinsic or connectional properties can interpret the same inhibition differently Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Both interneuron populations were driven nonselectively and with diffuse timing, unlike their natural recruitment, so type-specific functional differences may have been washed out. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: what the optogenetic experiment tests: BOTH POPULATIONS OF INTERNEURONS WERE ACTIVATED IN A NONSELECTIVE AND TEMPORALLY DIFFUSE MANNER, unlike their recruitment during normal brain operation | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | Optogenetic stimulation parameters were not matched between the awake and anesthetized preparations. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the awake-versus-anaesthetised comparison: SOME OF THE OPTOGENETIC PARAMETERS (LIGHT STRENGTH, OPTICAL FIBER DIAMETER) WERE NOT IDENTICAL BETWEEN the two preparations | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The proposed network mechanism is only one of several possible routes to the masking effect, and the paper does not exclude the others it lists. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the proposed network mechanism: THIS SECOND-ORDER EFFECT OF INHIBITORY ACTIVITY ON EXCITATORY TUNING IS MERELY ONE AMONG MANY MECHANISMS BY WHICH THIS MASKING PHENOMENON MAY EMERGE | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | both interneuron populations were driven nonselectively and diffusely in time, so differences arising from their natural response dynamics would not appear here 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] - differences arising from selective recruitment cannot appear in this design | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the masking mechanism demonstrated is offered as one among many rather than as the mechanism Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the masking mechanism as an explanation: THIS SECOND-ORDER EFFECT OF INHIBITORY ACTIVITY ON EXCITATORY TUNING IS MERELY ONE AMONG MANY MECHANISMS BY WHICH THIS 'MASKING' PHENOMENON MAY EMERGE | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the driver lines are stated to have under ten percent misexpression, which bounds but does not remove off-target activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: results reported by driver line: the lines are consistent with established expression patterns, with a stated misexpression rate that bounds rather than removes off-target labelling | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the divisive/subtractive decomposition, carried from cable theory into claims about interneuron classes in intact cortex Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | a minimal threshold-nonlinear network used to show that the transformation between the two is possible in principle 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 |
| controls | temporal profiles of the tone response computed with and without blue-light illumination, in the same isolated single units across cortical layers Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a difference between cells or sessions rather than an effect of the optogenetic manipulation - the light-off condition is the same unit, minutes apart · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| senses | DIVISIVE and SUBTRACTIVE are defined here as parameters of a straight line fitted to suppressed against control responses - slope below one is divisive, intercept below zero is subtractive - so they are properties of a FIT, not observed categories 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 | the framework's central question presupposes that the answer belongs to the interneuron type; this paper's result is that the question is asked at the wrong level 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 anatomical prediction is precise and well founded - dendritic synapses change current without changing somatic conductance, perisomatic ones change conductance - and it is confirmed in vitro on single cells 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 decisive observation is that neurons recorded AT THE SAME TIME on the same probe are suppressed in different ways, which rules out animal-to-animal and preparation variability by construction 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 |
| senses | light was set to a level that suppressed firing to about half of control in most units, so the manipulation is calibrated by its effect rather than by its intensity 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 |
| alternatives | claim_type: critique 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: mechanism — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides. | alternatives.claim_type | the tagger's words | |
| alternatives | method: optogenetic activation of Cre-defined interneuron classes with 16-site laminar recording of tone responses, threshold-linear regression of suppressed on control responses, and a network model 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: mixtures of divisive and subtractive suppression from either interneuron class, differing between neurons recorded at the same time 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: divisive versus subtractive cortical inhibition — 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 → prior reports of low (<10%) misexpression in Sst-Cre and Pvalb-Cre driver lines (Cardin et al., 2009; Sohal et al., 2009; Cardin et al., 2010; Kerlin et al., 2010; Taniguchi et al., 2011; Adesnik et al., 2012; Kvitsiani et al., 2013; 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[0] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | critiques → the framework in which each interneuron type is assigned a fixed divisive or subtractive function Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | reconciles → the apparently irreconcilable visual cortex findings about Sst and Pvalb interneuron effects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[2] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → in vitro demonstrations that somatic and dendritic inhibition suppress single pyramidal neurons divisively and subtractively 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 | contradicts → the standard prediction that activating Pvalb and Sst interneurons implements divisive and subtractive suppression respectively 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 |
| concept_edges | divisive —contrasted-with→ subtractive 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: CRITERION, AND IT IS A FIT: slope of one with a negative intercept is subtractive, slope below one with a zero intercept is divisive. Both are parameters of a regression, not observations also in: divisive · subtractive | concept_edges[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | interneuron —part-of→ network 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 LEVEL ERROR IN ONE SENTENCE: network interactions determine the systems-level effects of neuron-level manipulations, and that is what makes the literature look contradictory
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but interneurons within networks; part-of is loose. also in: interneuron · network | concept_edges[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | threshold —causes→ divisive 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: in the model, varying threshold and the strength of input suppression alone moves the apparent effect between divisive, subtractive and both
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but threshold nonlinearities can transform subtractive into divisive inhibition; causes 'divisive' is terse. | concept_edges[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | network —causes→ suppression 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 character of suppression downstream is set by the downstream cell's own properties, whatever happened upstream - hence 'masked'
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span says suppression character was set by intrinsic properties and connections; causes is loose. also in: network · suppression | concept_edges[8] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Sst —causes→ bandwidth 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: SIGN: narrowing - and by the same amount as Pvalb, so bandwidth does not separate the classes either | concept_edges[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | A1 —part-of→ auditory cortex 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: identified functionally, by short latency and the tonotopic reversal, rather than by coordinates also in: A1 · auditory cortex | concept_edges[14] | 1.0 | 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[0] | 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[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | G-test of independence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: G-test of independence | content_tags.statistics[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | bootstrap Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bootstrap | content_tags.statistics[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | regression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regression | content_tags.statistics[4] | 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[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | coefficient of determination Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: coefficient of determination | content_tags.statistics[6] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | permutation test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: permutation test | content_tags.statistics[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | confidence interval Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: confidence interval | content_tags.statistics[9] | 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[10] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | g-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: g-test | content_tags.statistics[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | rank-sum Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: rank-sum | content_tags.statistics[12] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | sign-rank Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sign-rank | content_tags.statistics[13] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Optogenetically activating either somatostatin- or parvalbumin-positive interneurons produced a mixture of divisive and subtractive suppression of auditory cortical tone responses, and neurons recorded at the same time were often suppressed in qualitatively different ways. 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 | The proportions of divisive, subtractive, mixed and neither-type suppression did not differ significantly between Sst+ and Pvalb+ activation. 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 | About half of suppressed units showed divisive-only suppression (slope below 1 with intercept not below 0), with the remainder split between subtractive-only, mixed, and neither, for both interneuron families. 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 | A threshold-linear (slope-plus-intercept) description captured most of the variance of suppression for both interneuron types, so the suppression of individual neurons was well described as a linear transformation. 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 | Bandwidth changes did not differ between activating Sst+ and Pvalb+ interneurons. 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 | Neurons within one cortical column are not equally affected by broad interneuron activation. 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 | In the network model, both divisive and subtractive suppression at single cells can produce divisive-like suppression of the net drive to a downstream neuron. 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 | In the model, a downstream neuron's suppression type was set by its own intrinsic properties and connections, regardless of whether its inputs were suppressed divisively or subtractively. 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 | activating either interneuron class produced mixtures of divisive and subtractive suppression rather than one or the other 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 proportions of suppression types did not differ between the two classes, g-test p = 0.54 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 | a linear framework accounted for a high proportion of the variance of suppression in both strains 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 | both classes narrowed frequency tuning bandwidths, and the distributions of change did not differ 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 | THE DECISIVE OBSERVATION: neurons recorded simultaneously on one probe were suppressed in uncorrelated ways 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 | which rules out preparation and animal-to-animal variability, and the same was seen in awake animals 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 | all four suppression types appeared for both classes in awake mice too, again with no difference in proportions 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 PREDICTION THAT FAILED: from synapse location and morphology, the standard prediction is that Pvalb+ activation divides and Sst+ activation subtracts 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 | the proposed explanation is that most cortical input is intracortical, so inhibition changes a neuron's inputs as well as the neuron 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 | and a network model shows that varying only threshold and input suppression strength moves the apparent effect between divisive and subtractive 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 | so a class's characteristic suppression can be MASKED by the network it sits in 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 | this reconciles the in vitro clarity with the in vivo mixture rather than treating the discrepancy as a problem 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 | the visual cortex literature contains every combination of the two assignments, described as apparently irreconcilable Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[20] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the same masking should appear in any network of appreciable complexity, and several further routes to it are named Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[21] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | local subnetworks can interpret the same inhibition differently even inside one global network Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[22] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | anaesthetised and awake preparations agreed despite differing optogenetic parameters, suggesting the masking is robust Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[23] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | SCOPE STATED: both populations were driven nonselectively and diffusely in time, so natural differences in their dynamics could not show up Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[24] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | light was set near 40 microwatts, which suppressed firing to about half of control in most units Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[25] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | somatostatin cells are about a quarter of cortical interneurons and target mainly distal dendrites Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[26] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Pvalb is expressed in roughly ~50% of cortical inhibitory interneurons, including subtypes whose axons form baskets around the soma or chandeliers on the axon initial segment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[27] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | subtractive suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subtractive suppression | content_tags.definitions[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | divisive suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: divisive suppression | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | iceberging Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: iceberging | content_tags.definitions[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | divisive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: divisive | content_tags.definitions[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | subtractive Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subtractive | content_tags.definitions[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | A1 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: A1 | content_tags.definitions[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | divisively suppressed neuron Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: divisively suppressed neuron | content_tags.definitions[7] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | subtractively suppressed neuron Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: subtractively suppressed neuron | content_tags.definitions[8] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | firing rate over time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: firing rate over time | content_tags.variables[4] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | suppression Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: suppression | content_tags.variables[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | bandwidth Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bandwidth | content_tags.variables[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | threshold Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: threshold | content_tags.variables[11] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | regression slope Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: regression slope | content_tags.variables[12] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | y-intercept Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: y-intercept | content_tags.variables[13] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | g-test p = 0.54 — No detectable difference between Sst+ and Pvalb+ activation in the proportions of divisive, subtractive, mixed and neither suppression types (anesthetized mice) 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 | n = 35 of 76 units; n = 27 of 63 units — Number of light-suppressed units showing divisive-only suppression, in Sst-ChR2 and Pvalb-ChR2 mice respectively 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 | n = 145 of 250 / n = 91 of 154 — Number of recorded single units that were tone-responsive in the Sst and Pvalb mouse lines 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 | median r 2 = 0.73 ± 0.17 / 0.81 ± 0.17 — Median quality of the linear (threshold-linear) fit to suppression in awake Sst and Pvalb mice 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 | rank-sum p = 0.63 — No difference between Sst+ and Pvalb+ activation in the distribution of bandwidth changes 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 | 40 µW / 50% / 65%–75% — Light power used in anesthetized recordings, the typical degree of firing suppression it produced, and the fraction of units so suppressed 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 | g-test p = 0.54 — the null on which the whole argument turns: suppression-type proportions did not differ between classes 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 | roughly 25% — share of cortical interneurons expressing somatostatin 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 | ~50% — share expressing parvalbumin 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 | near 40 µW — light power, chosen to suppress firing to about half of control 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 | <10% — misexpression in the driver lines, the bound on off-target activation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: Pfeffer et al., 2013 ) who found - THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS ROW ATTRIBUTES THE WORK TO SOMEBODY ELSE. The cited name is the subject of a result verb and the sentence carries no first-person marker, so the finding, quantity or definition is the CITED author's rather than this record's. The claim is true and the quote is verbatim - what is wrong is whose result the corpus says it is. Nothing edited, nothing withdrawn: the row is marked so a page can name the source. Where the record is a commentary or review, its claim relations layer usually already names the paper being discussed - the record knows at one layer and forgets at another. | content_tags.quantities[10] | 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.