phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | social representation in medial prefrontal cortex— “We studied the representation of social information in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) of freely-behaving mice.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “Here, we show that neurons in the medial PFC (mPFC) of freely behaving mice preferentially respond to socially-relevant sensory cues.” | |
| method — evidence | — “We recorded stimulus-evoked responses of mPFC units (n = 194; 6 mice) and found that 44% responded to at least one stimulus, typically by increasing their firing rates (Fig. 2a and Supplementary Fig. 2a-c).” | |
| mechanism | Elevated baseline cortical noise degrades the mPFC's ability to form category-specific social representations and to drive the synaptic plasticity that refines them— “The strong negative correlation we observe between baseline noise and social category representations suggests that noise plays an important role in the failure of mPFC activity in Cntnap2-/- mice to appropriately represent social stimuli and drive synaptic plasticity processes.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | Loss of CNTNAP2 impairs targeting of AMPA and NMDA receptors to post-synaptic membranes, removing the plasticity that would otherwise refine odour-category representations with experience— “The loss of experience-based refinement of odor category representation in Cntnap2-/- mice might be linked with the role of CNTNAP2 protein in targeting AMPA and NMDA receptors to post-synaptic membranes78,79.” | mechanisms[1] |
| extends | prior work on experience-dependent divergence of conspecific sex representations in hypothalamus and medial amygdala— “These findings expand upon recent work describing experience-dependent divergence of conspecific sex representations in the hypothalamus76 and medial amygdala77.” | claim_relations[0] |
| builds-on | Lazaro et al., "Reduced prefrontal synaptic connectivity and disturbed oscillatory population dynamics in the CNTNAP2 model of autism" (bioRxiv 2018)— “Furthermore, recent work by Lazaro et al. (“Reduced prefrontal synaptic connectivity and disturbed oscillatory population dynamics in the CNTNAP2 model of autism”, bioRxiv 2018) demonstrates reduced dendritic spine and synapse densities in the mPFC of Cntnap2-/- mice, providing a potential mechanism for the functional impairments we… | claim_relations[1] |
| sense | a social stimulus, here - AN ODOUR FROM A CONSPECIFIC: the tuning measure is odor-evoked response magnitude, higher for male and female cues than for all nonsocial odors regardless of odor identity, so every 'social' difference reported is a difference between two sets of smells— “The average unit tuning, calculated as the normalized odor-evoked response magnitude in all units that showed stimulus-associated responses, was higher for both male and female cues than for all nonsocial odors, regardless of odor identity” | senses[0] |
| sense | the social distinction index - A LOG RATIO OF POPULATION DISTANCES: introduced to quantify the separation between social and nonsocial representations per mouse, so a phrase that reads as a faculty names a ratio between distances among activity patterns - and the paper prints the formula beside the name— “To quantify the separation between representation of social (S) and nonsocial (NS) stimuli for each mouse, we calculated a social distinction index” | senses[1] |
| sense | the behavioural evidence - ONE DIFFERENCE OUT OF THREE MEASURES: orientation probability was higher for social cues while response latency and locomotion increase did not significantly differ, so the animals' overt behaviour separates the categories on one axis and not on two— “The probability of odor-directed orientation responses was higher during delivery of social cues (Fig. 1c). However, the response latency (Fig. 1d) and the stimulus-evoked increase in locomotion (Fig. 1e) did not significantly differ between social and nonsocial stimuli” | senses[2] |
| control | baseline firing rate and locomotion as explanations for the elevated noise — held — rules out the reading that the knockouts' higher baseline noise is a rate or movement artefact— “Multiple regression analysis revealed that the elevated baseline noise levels in Cntnap2-/- mice could not be linearly predicted by either elevated baseline unit firing rates, nor by behavioral locomotion levels” | controls[0] |
| edge | separation —operationalised-as→ social distinction index— “To quantify the separation between representation of social (S) and nonsocial (NS) stimuli for each mouse, we calculated a social distinction index” | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any claim that this mPFC activity encodes social information: the tuning measure is the normalised odor-evoked response magnitude, and it was higher for male and female cues than for all nonsocial odors— “The average unit tuning, calculated as the normalized odor-evoked response magnitude in all units that showed stimulus-associated responses, was higher for both male and female cues than for all nonsocial odors, regardless of odor identity” | limitations[0] |
| for which use | limitation — any behavioural evidence that the mice treated social cues differently: orientation probability was higher for social cues, while response latency and the stimulus-evoked increase in locomotion did not significantly differ— “The probability of odor-directed orientation responses was higher during delivery of social cues (Fig. 1c). However, the response latency (Fig. 1d) and the stimulus-evoked increase in locomotion (Fig. 1e) did not significantly differ between social and nonsocial stimuli” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — any social distinction index quoted from this work: it was calculated to quantify the separation between the representations of social and nonsocial stimuli for each mouse— “To quantify the separation between representation of social (S) and nonsocial (NS) stimuli for each mouse, we calculated a social distinction index” | limitations[2] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | The social/nonsocial distinction is a distinction between two sets of odours.— “The average unit tuning, calculated as the normalized odor-evoked response magnitude in all units that showed stimulus-associated responses, was higher for both male and female cues than for all nonsocial odors, regardless of odor identity” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | Two of the three behavioural measures did not differ between social and nonsocial stimuli.— “The probability of odor-directed orientation responses was higher during delivery of social cues (Fig. 1c). However, the response latency (Fig. 1d) and the stimulus-evoked increase in locomotion (Fig. 1e) did not significantly differ between social and nonsocial stimuli” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | The paper's central quantity is a log ratio of distances between activity patterns.— “To quantify the separation between representation of social (S) and nonsocial (NS) stimuli for each mouse, we calculated a social distinction index” | limitations[2] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | In the mouse medial prefrontal cortex, nearly a quarter of recorded units were selective for social odours, twice as many as were selective for nonsocial odours or showed mixed responses.— “Almost a quarter of recorded units displayed selectivity to social signals - twice the number of units with nonsocial odor selectivity or mixed social/nonsocial responses (Fig. 2c left and Supplementary Fig. 2c-e).” | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The mPFC population code is organised by social versus nonsocial category rather than by odour identity or valence: responses to the two social cues were more similar to each other than to any nonsocial odour.— “The block-diagonal structure of the dissimilarity matrix reflects a category-based organization of the population codebook in the mPFC: encoding distributions of the social cues were significantly more similar to each other than to any of the nonsocial odors, regardless of odor identity or valence (Fig. 3d).” | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | Average unit tuning was stronger for both male and female social cues than for any of the three nonsocial odours, independent of odour identity.— “The average unit tuning, calculated as the normalized odor-evoked response magnitude in all units that showed stimulus-associated responses, was higher for both male and female cues than for all nonsocial odors, regardless of odor identity (Fig. 2e).” | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | In wild-type mice the social distinction index rose significantly from the first to the second recording day, showing experience-dependent refinement of the social representation.— “The SDI values consistently and significantly increased between the first and second recording days for all wt mice.” | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | Cntnap2 knockout mice showed no experience-dependent change: their social distinction index was unchanged between the two recording sessions.— “In contrast, no consistent change occurred in the Cntnap2-/- group, and mean SDI values in these mice remained unchanged between sessions (Fig. 4e).” | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | The autism-model deficit is specific to categorisation rather than to stimulus encoding: single-odour decoding was equally accurate in both genotypes, but social/nonsocial category decoding was significantly worse in Cntnap2 knockouts.— “Remarkably, decoding performance for individual odors was similar in wt and Cntnap2-/- mice, whereas performance for odor category (S or NS) was significantly inferior in Cntnap2-/- mice (Fig. 5d).” | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | Baseline (ongoing) population activity was noisier in Cntnap2 knockout mice than in wild-type littermates, with the two genotypes almost completely non-overlapping on this measure.— “We found that this measure of noise was significantly higher in Cntnap2-/- mice compared to their wt littermates (Fig. 6b-c; note that with the exception of one mouse, the noise measure of the two genotypes were completely non-overlapping).” | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | Mean baseline firing rates of mPFC units were higher in Cntnap2 knockout mice than in wild-type littermates.— “Consistently, we found that the mean baseline firing rates of mPFC units recorded in Cntnap2-/- mice were significantly higher than those recorded in their wt littermates (Fig. 6a).” | content_tags.findings[7] |
| finding | Across both genotypes, the level of baseline neuronal noise was strongly negatively correlated with the social distinction index.— “Remarkably, we found that across genotypes, baseline neuronal noise showed a strong negative correlation with SDI values (Fig. 6d).” | content_tags.findings[8] |
| finding | Baseline cortical noise predicted how much a mouse's social representation refined with experience: higher noise went with a smaller day-to-day gain in the social distinction index. | content_tags.findings[9] |
| finding | The neural preference for social cues was not explained by behaviour: latency to orient and stimulus-evoked locomotion did not differ between social and nonsocial odours. | content_tags.findings[10] |
| quantity | n = 194 — number of mPFC single units recorded in the first cohort of six mice | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 44% — proportion of recorded mPFC units that responded to at least one odour stimulus Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | 51% — proportion of responsive units that responded to only one specific stimulus Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | from 44% on day 1 to 58% on day 2 — rise in the share of non-responsive units in Cntnap2 knockout mice across the two sessions Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 269 / 237 — total units recorded in Cntnap2 knockout mice versus wild-type littermates across both days Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 75% — variance in population activity captured by the first two principal components in the example projection Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | social = 98.33 ± 1.05, nonsocial = 87.22 ± 3.03, clean air = 65 ± 7.63 — mean probability of an odour-evoked orientation response by stimulus class Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| quantity | t(103) = 3.285, P < 0.01 — test of the higher evoked response magnitude to social versus nonsocial stimuli Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[7] |
| variable | evoked firing rate (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| variable | cortical noise level (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[4] |
| variable | locomotion level (covariate) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[5] |
| definition | social distinction index Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | Jensen-Shannon divergence Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | cortical noise Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | unit tuning Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| concept | social distinction index Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[0] |
| concept | nonsocial odors Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[1] |
| concept | odor-evoked response magnitude Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[2] |
| concept | separation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[3] |
| concept | baseline noise levels Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concepts[4] |
| Friedman test | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| Wilcoxon signed-rank test | as written: post hoc Wilcoxon signed-ranked test Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| ANOVA F | as written: Two-way repeated measures (RM) ANOVA Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| t-test t | as written: Student’s t-test Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| chi-squared χ2 | as written: χ2 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| standardized residuals | as written: Standardized residual analysis Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| z-score Z | as written: Response Z-score Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[6] |
| Bonferroni correction | as written: Bonferroni correction for post hoc comparisons Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[7] |
| Levene's test | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[8] |
| principal component analysis PCA | as written: Principal Component Analysis (PCA) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[9] |
| cross-validation | as written: cross-validation values Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[10] |
| multiple regression | as written: Multiple regression analysis Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[11] |
| maximum likelihood classification | as written: maximum likelihood classifiers Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[12] |
| standard error of the mean SEM | as written: mean ± SEM Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[13] |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824