ArticleScientific reports2013
Global hyper-synchronous spontaneous activity in the developing optic tectum.
Article in Scientific reports, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emergence of Selectivity to Looming Stimuli in a Spiking Network Model of the Optic Tectum.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2016Article
- Modeling human neurodevelopmental disorders in the Xenopus tadpole: from mechanisms to therapeutic targets.Disease models & mechanisms · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Studies of patterned spontaneous activity can elucidate how the organization of neural circuits emerges. Using in vivo two-photon Ca(2+) imaging, we studied spatio-temporal patterns of spontaneous activity in the optic tectum of Xenopus tadpoles. We found rhythmic patterns of global synchronous spontaneous activity between neurons, which depends on visual experience and developmental stage. By contrast, synchronous spontaneous activity between non-neuronal cells is mediated more locally. To understand the source of the neuronal spontaneous activity, input to the tectum was systematically removed. Whereas removing input from the visual or mechanosensory system alone had little effect on patterned spontaneous activity, removing input from both systems drastically altered it. These results suggest that either input is sufficient to maintain the intrinsically generated spontaneous activity and that patterned spontaneous activity results from input from multisensory systems. Thus, the amphibian midbrain differs from the mammalian visual system, whose spontaneous activity is controlled by retinal waves.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.