MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965479704 · doi:10.1109/iscas.2013.6572385

Parameter estimation of Hodgkin-Huxley neuronal model using dual extended Kalman filter

2013· article· en· W1965479704 on OpenAlexaff
Milad Lankarany, Wei‐Ping Zhu, M.N.S. Swamy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKalman filterHodgkin–Huxley modelComputer scienceNoise (video)Estimation theoryExtended Kalman filterBiological neuron modelFilter (signal processing)Dual (grammatical number)Artificial intelligenceBiological systemControl theory (sociology)AlgorithmArtificial neural networkNeuroscienceComputer visionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fitting biophysical models to real noisy data jointly with extracting fundamental biophysical parameters has recently stimulated tremendous studies in computational neuroscience. Hodgkin-Huxley (HH) neuronal model has been considered as the most detailed biophysical model for representing the dynamical behavior of the spiking neurons. In this paper, we derive, for the first time, the dual extended Kalman filtering (DEKF) approach for the HH neuronal model to track the dynamics and estimate the parameters of a single neuron from noisy recorded membrane voltage. As unscented Kalman filter (UKF) has been already applied to the HH model, a quantitative comparison between these methods is accomplished in our simulation for different signal to observation noise ratios. Our simulations demonstrate the high accuracy of DEKF in the prediction and estimation of hidden states and unknown parameters of the HH neuronal model. Faster implementation of DEKF (than UKF) makes it particularly useful in dynamic clamp technique.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207