Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21430165›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2011

Constancy and variability in the output of a central pattern generator.

Brian J Norris, Angela Wenning, Terrence Michael Wright, Ronald L Calabrese

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Gait Variability at Different Walking Speeds.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 2023
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The neural control of heartbeat in invertebrates.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2016
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Computational models in the age of large datasets.Current opinion in neurobiology · 2015
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Brian J NorrisDepartment of Biology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia 30322, USA.
Angela Wenning
Terrence Michael Wright
Ronald L Calabrese
Emory University · US

Funding

NEUROMODULATORY INFLUENCES ON MOTOR SYSTEMSR01NS024072 · NINDS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI CALABRESE, RONALD L · 1985 to 2011
$3.6M
Neuromodulatory Influences on Motor SystemsR56NS024072 · NINDS · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI CALABRESE, RONALD L · 2013 to 2013
$386k
NINDS NIH HHS NS-24072NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS024072NINDS NIH HHS R56 NS024072
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Experimental and corresponding modeling studies have demonstrated a twofold to fivefold variation of intrinsic and synaptic parameters across animals, whereas functional output is maintained. These studies have led to the hypothesis that correlated, compensatory changes in particular parameters can at least partially explain the biological variability in parameters. Using the leech heartbeat central pattern generator (CPG), we selected three different segmental motor neurons that fire in a functional phase progression but receive input from the same four premotor interneurons. Previous work suggested that the phase progression arises because the pattern of relative strength of the four inputs varies systematically across the segmental motor neurons. Nevertheless, there was considerable animal-to-animal variation in the absolute strengths of these connections. We tested the hypothesis that functional output is maintained in the face of variation in the absolute strength of connections because relative strengths onto particular motor neurons are maintained. We found that relative strength is not strictly maintained across animals even as functional output is maintained, and animal-to-animal variations in relative strength of particular inputs do not correlate strongly with output phase. In parallel with this variation in synaptic strength, the firing phase of the premotor inputs to these motor neurons varies considerably across individuals. We conclude that the number (four) of inputs to each motor neuron, which each vary in strength, and the phase diversity of the temporal pattern of input from the CPG diminish the influence of individual inputs. We hypothesize that each animal arrives at a unique solution for how the network produces functional output.

Indexed as

InstinctAlgorithmsAnimalsData Interpretation, StatisticalElectrophysiological PhenomenaExtracellular SpaceHeartInterneuronsLeechesMotor NeuronsNerve NetNeural ConductionPatch-Clamp Techniques

Identifiers

PMID21430165
PMCPMC3071692
OpenAlexW2017581972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.