MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019136676 · doi:10.1063/1.3657920

Coherence depression in stochastic excitable systems with two-frequency forcing

2011· article· en· W2019136676 on OpenAlexafffund
Na Yu, André Longtin

Bibliographic record

VenueChaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
Topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Forcing (mathematics)Statistical physicsPhysicsAtmospheric sciencesQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the response of two generic neuron models, the leaky integrate-and-fire (LIF) model and the leaky integrate-and-fire model with dynamic threshold (LIFDT) (i.e., with memory) to a stimulus consisting of two sinusoidal drives with incommensurate frequency, an amplitude modulation ("envelope") noise and a relatively weak additive noise. Spectral and coherence analysis of responses to such naturalistic stimuli reveals how the LIFDT model exhibits better correlation between modulation and spike train even in the presence of both noises. However, a resonance-induced synchrony, occurring when the beat frequency between the sinusoids is close to the intrinsic neuronal firing rate, decreases the coherence in the dynamic threshold case. Under suprathreshold conditions, the modulation noise simultaneously decreases the linear spectral coherence between the spikes and the whole stimulus, as well as between spikes and the stimulus envelope. Our study shows that the coefficient of variation of the envelope fluctuations is positively correlated with the degree of coherence depression. As the coherence function quantifies the linear information transmission, our findings indicate that under certain conditions, a transmission loss results when an excitable system with adaptive properties encodes a beat with frequency in the vicinity of its mean firing rate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear ScienceSame topicstochastic dynamics and bifurcationFrench-language works237,207