The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
Conversely, if there's an overactivity or an increase in that activity in the visual system for some period of time, then a number of receptors in the postsynaptic neuron are removed from that postsynaptic neuron surface, making any neurotransmitter that's available only able to bind the receptors that are left and have less of an influence on those cells.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
what the Turrigiano Laboratory showed was that for instance, if we are in the dark for a long period of time, literally, and we're not seeing much for a long period of time, there's an increase in the number of receptors in the postsynaptic neurons so that a smaller amount of light and excitability within the visual system can lead to greater amounts of activity in the visual system.
in other words, keeping a circuit in so-called homeostatic balance in a particular range of excitability. Now, while that's a mouthful and an earful and a concept-full, is a lot to think about, but all you need to know is that if a neural circuit is very active for a period of time, in normal individuals, there will be a reduction in the amount of activity by way of removing receptors that bind neurotransmitter.