Neural Heterogeneities Determine Response Characteristics to Second-, but Not First-Order Stimulus Features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural heterogeneities are seen ubiquitously, but how they determine neural response properties remains unclear. Here we show that heterogeneities can either strongly, or not at all, influence neural responses to a given stimulus feature. Specifically, we recorded from peripheral electroreceptor neurons, which display strong heterogeneities in their resting discharge activity, in response to naturalistic stimuli consisting of a fast time-varying waveform (i.e., first-order) whose amplitude (i.e., second-order or envelope) varied slowly in the weakly electric fish Apteronotus leptorhynchus. Although electroreceptors displayed relatively homogeneous responses to first-order stimulus features, further analysis revealed two subpopulations with similar sensitivities that were excited or inhibited by increases in the envelope, respectively, for stimuli whose frequency content spanned the natural range. We further found that a linear-nonlinear cascade model incorporating the known linear response characteristics to first-order features and a static nonlinearity accurately reproduced experimentally observed responses to both first- and second-order features for all stimuli tested. Importantly, this model correctly predicted that the response magnitude is independent of either the stimulus waveform's or the envelope's frequency content. Further analysis of our model led to the surprising prediction that the mean discharge activity can be used to determine whether a given neuron is excited or inhibited by increases in the envelope. This prediction was validated by our experimental data. Thus, our results provide key insight as to how neural heterogeneities can determine response characteristics to some, but not other, behaviorally relevant stimulus features.
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) | 0.001 | 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".