Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25104927›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in systems neuroscience2014

Development and matching of binocular orientation preference in mouse V1.

Basabi Bhaumik, Nishal P Shah

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in systems neuroscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 47% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Basabi BhaumikElectrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi New Delhi, India.
Nishal P ShahElectrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi New Delhi, India.
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eye-specific thalamic inputs converge in the primary visual cortex (V1) and form the basis of binocular vision. For normal binocular perceptions, such as depth and stereopsis, binocularly matched orientation preference between the two eyes is required. A critical period of binocular matching of orientation preference in mice during normal development is reported in literature. Using a reaction diffusion model we present the development of RF and orientation selectivity in mouse V1 and investigate the binocular orientation preference matching during the critical period. At the onset of the critical period the preferred orientations of the modeled cells are mostly mismatched in the two eyes and the mismatch decreases and reaches levels reported in juvenile mouse by the end of the critical period. At the end of critical period 39% of cells in binocular zone in our model cortex is orientation selective. In literature around 40% cortical cells are reported as orientation selective in mouse V1. The starting and the closing time for critical period determine the orientation preference alignment between the two eyes and orientation tuning in cortical cells. The absence of near neighbor interaction among cortical cells during the development of thalamo-cortical wiring causes a salt and pepper organization in the orientation preference map in mice. It also results in much lower % of orientation selective cells in mice as compared to ferrets and cats having organized orientation maps with pinwheels.

Indexed as

critical period for orientation matchingmouse V1orientation maporientation selectivityreceptive field alignment

Identifiers

PMID25104927
PMCPMC4109519
OpenAlexW2152122290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.