Bursts and Isolated Spikes Code for Opposite Movement Directions in Midbrain Electrosensory Neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directional selectivity, in which neurons respond strongly to an object moving in a given direction but weakly or not at all to the same object moving in the opposite direction, is a crucial computation that is thought to provide a neural correlate of motion perception. However, directional selectivity has been traditionally quantified by using the full spike train, which does not take into account particular action potential patterns. We investigated how different action potential patterns, namely bursts (i.e. packets of action potentials followed by quiescence) and isolated spikes, contribute to movement direction coding in a mathematical model of midbrain electrosensory neurons. We found that bursts and isolated spikes could be selectively elicited when the same object moved in opposite directions. In particular, it was possible to find parameter values for which our model neuron did not display directional selectivity when the full spike train was considered but displayed strong directional selectivity when bursts or isolated spikes were instead considered. Further analysis of our model revealed that an intrinsic burst mechanism based on subthreshold T-type calcium channels was not required to observe parameter regimes for which bursts and isolated spikes code for opposite movement directions. However, this burst mechanism enhanced the range of parameter values for which such regimes were observed. Experimental recordings from midbrain neurons confirmed our modeling prediction that bursts and isolated spikes can indeed code for opposite movement directions. Finally, we quantified the performance of a plausible neural circuit and found that it could respond more or less selectively to isolated spikes for a wide range of parameter values when compared with an interspike interval threshold. Our results thus show for the first time that different action potential patterns can differentially encode movement and that traditional measures of directional selectivity need to be revised in such cases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".