MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978907976 · doi:10.1103/physreve.79.011914

Noise shaping in neural populations

2009· article· en· W1978907976 on OpenAlexafffund
Oscar Ávila Åkerberg, Maurice J. Chacron

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología
KeywordsExcitatory postsynaptic potentialInformation transmissionRenewal theoryCoupling (piping)Coupling strengthStimulus (psychology)TrainArtificial neural networkStatistical physicsBiological systemInterval (graph theory)Computer scienceNoise (video)PhysicsInhibitory postsynaptic potentialMathematicsNeuroscienceStatisticsArtificial intelligenceBiologyCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many neurons display intrinsic interspike interval correlations in their spike trains. However, the effects of such correlations on information transmission in neural populations are not well understood. We quantified signal processing using linear response theory supported by numerical simulations in networks composed of two different models: One model generates a renewal process where interspike intervals are not correlated while the other generates a nonrenewal process where subsequent interspike intervals are negatively correlated. Our results show that the fractional rate of increase in information rate as a function of network size and stimulus intensity is lower for the nonrenewal model than for the renewal one. We show that this is mostly due to the lower amount of effective noise in the nonrenewal model. We also show the surprising result that coupling has opposite effects in renewal and nonrenewal networks: Excitatory (inhibitory coupling) will decrease (increase) the information rate in renewal networks while inhibitory (excitatory coupling) will decrease (increase) the information rate in nonrenewal networks. We discuss these results and their applicability to other classes of excitable systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207