Adaptive Gain Modulation in V1 Explains Contextual Modifications during Bisection Learning

The neuronal processing of visual stimuli in primary visual cortex (V1) can be modified by perceptual training. Training in bisection discrimination, for instance, changes the contextual interactions in V1 elicited by parallel lines. Before training, two parallel lines inhibit their individual V1-responses. After bisection training, inhibition turns into non-symmetric excitation while performing the bisection task. Yet, the receptive field of the V1 neurons evaluated by a single line does not change during task performance. We present a model of recurrent processing in V1 where the neuronal gain can be modulated by a global attentional signal. Perceptual learning mainly consists in strengthening this attentional signal, leading to a more effective gain modulation. The model reproduces both the psychophysical results on bisection learning and the modified contextual interactions observed in V1 during task performance. It makes several predictions, for instance that imagery training should improve the performance, or that a slight stimulus wiggling can strongly affect the representation in V1 while performing the task. We conclude that strengthening a top-down induced gain increase can explain perceptual learning, and that this top-down signal can modify lateral interactions within V1, without significantly changing the classical receptive field of V1 neurons

Competitive Tendering In The Netherlands: Central Planning Or Functional Specifications?

Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies. Faculty of Economics and Business. The University of Sydne

Influence of chemical structure on hypersensitivity reactions induced by antiepileptic drugs:the role of the aromatic ring

OBJECTIVE: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can cause various 'idiosyncratic' hypersensitivity reactions, i.e. the mechanism by which AEDs induce hypersensitivity is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess whether the presence of an aromatic ring as a commonality in chemical structures of AEDs can explain symptoms of hypersensitivity. METHODS: Between January 1985 and January 2007, all adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb related to AEDs as suspected drugs were included in this study. ADRs were analysed using a case/non-case design. Cases were defined as those patients with ADRs involving symptoms of hypersensitivity. Non-cases were patients with all other ADR reports. Symptoms of hypersensitivity were classified according to the Gell and Coombs classification (type I-IV) and the organ involved (e.g. cutaneous, hepatic). AEDs were classified as aromatic anticonvulsant if their chemical structure contained at least one aromatic ring. All other AEDs were classified as non-aromatic. We assessed the strength of the association between aromatic AEDs versus non-aromatic AEDs and reported hypersensitivity reactions with logistic regression analysis and expressed these as reporting odds ratios (RORs). RESULTS: In total, 303 cases of hypersensitivity associated with the use of AEDs were reported. Aromatic AEDs were suspected in 64.4% of these reports versus 41.3% (574/1389) of the non-hypersensitivity reports. A significant ROR of 2.15 (95% CI 1.63, 2.82) was found for aromatic AEDs and all hypersensitivity reactions. Aromatic AEDs were significantly associated with immunoglobin E-mediated type I hypersensitivity reactions (ROR 2.15; 95% CI 1.23, 3.78) and T-cell-mediated type IV reactions (ROR 6.06; 95% CI 3.41, 10.75). Type II and III reactions did not show an association. Cutaneous symptoms represented 39.9% of the hypersensitivity-related ADRs. Aromatic AEDs were significantly associated with cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions (ROR 5.81; 95% CI 3.38, 9.99). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the presence of an aromatic ring as a common feature in chemical structures of AEDs partly explains apparent 'idiosyncratic' hypersensitivity reactions. Symptoms of hypersensitivity were reported twice as frequently with aromatic AEDs than with non-aromatic AEDs. Strong associations for aromatic AEDs versus non-aromatic AEDs were found for T-cell-mediated (type IV) reactions, as well as for cutaneous reactions

Influence of chemical structure on hypersensitivity reactions induced by antiepileptic drugs: the role of the aromatic ring.

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) can cause various 'idiosyncratic' hypersensitivity reactions, i.e. the mechanism by which AEDs induce hypersensitivity is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess whether the presence of an aromatic ring as a commonality in chemical structures of AEDs can explain symptoms of hypersensitivity. METHODS: Between January 1985 and January 2007, all adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Centre Lareb related to AEDs as suspected drugs were included in this study. ADRs were analysed using a case/non-case design. Cases were defined as those patients with ADRs involving symptoms of hypersensitivity. Non-cases were patients with all other ADR reports. Symptoms of hypersensitivity were classified according to the Gell and Coombs classification (type I-IV) and the organ involved (e.g. cutaneous, hepatic). AEDs were classified as aromatic anticonvulsant if their chemical structure contained at least one aromatic ring. All other AEDs were classified as non-aromatic. We assessed the strength of the association between aromatic AEDs versus non-aromatic AEDs and reported hypersensitivity reactions with logistic regression analysis and expressed these as reporting odds ratios (RORs). RESULTS: In total, 303 cases of hypersensitivity associated with the use of AEDs were reported. Aromatic AEDs were suspected in 64.4% of these reports versus 41.3% (574/1389) of the non-hypersensitivity reports. A significant ROR of 2.15 (95% CI 1.63, 2.82) was found for aromatic AEDs and all hypersensitivity reactions. Aromatic AEDs were significantly associated with immunoglobin E-mediated type I hypersensitivity reactions (ROR 2.15; 95% CI 1.23, 3.78) and T-cell-mediated type IV reactions (ROR 6.06; 95% CI 3.41, 10.75). Type II and III reactions did not show an association. Cutaneous symptoms represented 39.9% of the hypersensitivity-related ADRs. Aromatic AEDs were significantly associated with cutaneous hypersensitivity reactions (ROR 5.81; 95% CI 3.38, 9.99). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that the presence of an aromatic ring as a common feature in chemical structures of AEDs partly explains apparent 'idiosyncratic' hypersensitivity reactions. Symptoms of hypersensitivity were reported twice as frequently with aromatic AEDs than with non-aromatic AEDs. Strong associations for aromatic AEDs versus non-aromatic AEDs were found for T-cell-mediated (type IV) reactions, as well as for cutaneous reactions