Spike-Frequency Adaptation Separates Transient Communication Signals from Background Oscillations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spike-frequency adaptation is a prominent feature of many neurons. However, little is known about its computational role in processing behaviorally relevant natural stimuli beyond filtering out slow changes in stimulus intensity. Here, we present a more complex example in which we demonstrate how spike-frequency adaptation plays a key role in separating transient signals from slower oscillatory signals. We recorded in vivo from very rapidly adapting electroreceptor afferents of the weakly electric fish Apteronotus leptorhynchus. The firing-frequency response of electroreceptors to fast communication stimuli ("small chirps") is strongly enhanced compared with the response to slower oscillations ("beats") arising from interactions of same-sex conspecifics. We are able to accurately predict the electroreceptor afferent response to chirps and beats, using a recently proposed general model for spike-frequency adaptation. The parameters of the model are determined for each neuron individually from the responses to step stimuli. We conclude that the dynamics of the rapid spike-frequency adaptation is sufficient to explain the data. Analysis of additional data from step responses demonstrates that spike-frequency adaptation acts subtractively rather than divisively as expected from depressing synapses. Therefore, the adaptation dynamics is linear and creates a high-pass filter with a cutoff frequency of 23 Hz that separates fast signals from slower changes in input. A similar critical frequency is seen in behavioral data on the probability of a fish emitting chirps as a function of beat frequency. These results demonstrate how spike-frequency adaptation in general can facilitate extraction of signals of different time scales, specifically high-frequency signals embedded in slower oscillations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".