Corticofugal Modulation of Tactile Responses of Neurons in the Spinal Trigeminal Nucleus - Advancing Artificial Intelligence Through Biological Process Applications - page 12

Figure 4. Wavelet coherences of the neural response to vibrissa deflection events evaluated in the stimulus
period band [0.86-1.2] s. Color corresponds to the coherence level. Data correspond to Figures 2 and 3.
(A) Coherence during control stimulation. (B, C) Coherence during stimulation with parallel ipsilateral
or contralateral application of a sensory-interference (distractive) stimulus. Sensory distraction leads
to an overall decrease of the coherence level and low frequency oscillations.

Figure 5. Averaged over stimulus period band wavelet coherence of the neural response to vibrissa
deflection events for control, ipsilateral and contralateral epochs

the stimulus processing we evaluate the wavelet
coherence for each spike train in different epochs
and compare coherences during sensory-interfer-
ence with that found in the control conditions.
Figure 4 illustrates the wavelet coherence of the
vibrissae stimuli and the evoked neural responses.
Since the stimulation is periodic (1 s period) when
speaking about the response coherence we shall
refer to the stimulus period band only, i.e. [0.86,
1.2] s band. In control stimulation (Figure 4A),
the neuron response was highly coherent to the

sensory stimulation train. This evidences the
presence of the stimulus-response association
previously observed in the corresponding PSTH
(Figure 2A) and in the power spectrum (Figure
3B). Moreover, as noticed above the strength of
the sensory stimulus - neural response functional
coupling is high and quite constant along the
stimulation epoch.
Simultaneous application of the ipsilateral
(Figure 4B) or contralateral (Figure 4C) distracter
stimulus during tactile stimulation of the principal