Coherence depression in stochastic excitable systems with two-frequency forcing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".