MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Statistics of the Electrosensory Input in the Freely Swimming Weakly Electric Fish<i>Apteronotus leptorhynchus</i>

2013· article· en· W2014843103 on OpenAlexafffund
Haleh Fotowat, Reid R. Harrison, Rüdiger Krahe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGrass Foundation
KeywordsElectroreceptionElectric fishSensory systemNeuroscienceAmplitudeCommunicationComputer scienceBiologyPhysicsFish <Actinopterygii>PsychologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neural computations underlying sensory-guided behaviors can best be understood in view of the sensory stimuli to be processed under natural conditions. This input is often actively shaped by the movements of the animal and its sensory receptors. Little is known about natural sensory scene statistics taking into account the concomitant movement of sensory receptors in freely moving animals. South American weakly electric fish use a self-generated quasi-sinusoidal electric field for electrolocation and electrocommunication. Thousands of cutaneous electroreceptors detect changes in the transdermal potential (TDP) as the fish interact with conspecifics and the environment. Despite substantial knowledge about the circuitry and physiology of the electrosensory system, the statistical properties of the electrosensory input evoked by natural swimming movements have never been measured directly. Using underwater wireless telemetry, we recorded the TDP of Apteronotus leptorhynchus as they swam freely by themselves and during interaction with a conspecific. Swimming movements caused low-frequency TDP amplitude modulations (AMs). Interacting with a conspecific caused additional AMs around the difference frequency of their electric fields, with the amplitude of the AMs (envelope) varying at low frequencies due to mutual movements. Both AMs and envelopes showed a power-law relationship with frequency, indicating spectral scale invariance. Combining a computational model of the electric field with video tracking of movements, we show that specific swimming patterns cause characteristic spatiotemporal sensory input correlations that contain information that may be used by the brain to guide behavior.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations93
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207