Dynamics of driven recurrent networks of ON and OFF cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A globally coupled network of ON and OFF cells is studied using neural field theory. ON cells increase their activity when the amplitude of an external stimulus increases, while OFF cells do the opposite given the same stimulus. Theory predicts that, without input, multiple transitions to oscillations can occur depending on feedback delay and the difference between ON and OFF resting states. Static spatial stimuli can induce or suppress global oscillations via a Andronov-Hopf bifurcation. This is the case for either polarity of such stimuli. In contrast, only excitatory inputs can induce or suppress oscillations in an equivalent network built of ON cells only even though oscillations are more prevalent in such systems. Nonmonotonic responses to local stimuli occur where responses lateral to the stimulus switch from excitatory to inhibitory as the input amplitude increases. With local time-periodic forcing, the unforced cells oscillate at twice the driving frequency via full-wave rectification mediated by the feedback. Our results agree with simulations of the neural field model, and further, qualitative agreement is found with the behavior of a network of spiking stochastic integrate-and-fire model neurons.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".