Neuronal Population Codes and the Perception of Object Distance in Weakly Electric Fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Weakly electric fish use an electric sense to navigate and capture prey in the dark. Objects in the surroundings of the fish produce distortions in their self-generated electric field; these distortions form a two-dimensional Gaussian-like electric image on the skin surface. To determine the distance of an object, the peak amplitude and width of its electric image must be estimated. These sensory features are encoded by a neuronal population in the early stages of the electrosensory pathway, but are not represented with classic bell-shaped neuronal tuning curves. In contrast, bell-shaped tuning curves do characterize the neuronal responses to the location of the electric image on the body surface, such that parallel two-dimensional maps of this feature are formed. In the case of such two-dimensional maps, theoretical results suggest that the width of neural tuning should have no effect on the accuracy of a population code. Here we show that although the spatial scale of the electrosensory maps does not affect the accuracy of encoding the body surface location of the electric image, maps with narrower tuning are better for estimating image width and those with wider tuning are better for estimating image amplitude. We quantitatively evaluate a two-step algorithm for distance perception involving the sequential estimation of peak amplitude and width of the electric image. This algorithm is best implemented by two neural maps with different tuning widths. These results suggest that multiple maps of sensory features may be specialized with different tuning widths, for encoding additional sensory features that are not explicitly mapped.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".