MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Broadband Coding with Dynamic Synapses

2009· article· en· W1987810063 on OpenAlexafffund
Benjamin Lindner, Dorian A. Gangloff, André Longtin, John E. Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPostsynaptic potentialNeurotransmissionNeuroscienceSynaptic plasticitySpike trainNeural facilitationComputer scienceInhibitory postsynaptic potentialExcitatory postsynaptic potentialSpike (software development)BiologyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Short-term synaptic plasticity (STP) can significantly alter the amplitudes of synaptic responses in ways that depend on presynaptic history. Thus, it is widely assumed that STP acts as a filter for specific patterns of presynaptic inputs, and as a result can play key roles in neuronal information processing. To evaluate this assumption and directly quantify the effects of STP on information transmission, we consider a population of independent synaptic inputs to a model neuron. We show using standard information theoretic approaches that the changes in synaptic response amplitude resulting from STP interact with the related effects on fluctuations in membrane conductance, such that information transmission is broadband (no frequency-dependent filtering occurs), regardless of whether synaptic depression or facilitation dominates. Interestingly, this broadband transmission is preserved in the postsynaptic spike train as long as the postsynaptic neuron's baseline firing rate is relatively high; in contrast, low baseline firing rates lead to STP-dependent effects. Thus, background inputs that control the firing state of a postsynaptic neuron can gate the effects of STP on information transmission.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations76
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207