MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995600724 · doi:10.1152/jn.00370.2009

Behaviorally Relevant Burst Coding in Primary Sensory Neurons

2009· article· en· W1995600724 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Sabourin, Gerald S. Pollack

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurophysiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory systemStimulus (psychology)BurstingNeuroscienceInterneuronSurround suppressionSensory neuronNeuronBiologyInhibitory postsynaptic potentialPsychologyVisual perceptionPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bursts of action potentials in sensory interneurons are believed to signal the occurrence of particularly salient stimulus features. Previous work showed that bursts in an identified, ultrasound-tuned interneuron (AN2) of the cricket Teleogryllus oceanicus code for conspicuous increases in amplitude of an ultrasound stimulus, resulting in behavioral responses that are interpreted as avoidance of echolocating bats. We show that the primary sensory neurons that inform AN2 about high-frequency acoustic stimuli also produce bursts. As is the case for AN2, bursts in sensory neurons perform better as feature detectors than isolated, nonburst, spikes. Bursting is temporally correlated between sensory neurons, suggesting that on occurrence of a salient stimulus feature, AN2 will receive strong synaptic input in the form of coincident bursts, from several sensory neurons, and that this might result in bursting in AN2. Our results show that an important feature of the temporal structure of interneuron spike trains can be established at the earliest possible level of sensory processing, i.e., that of the primary sensory neuron.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations18
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeurophysiologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207