MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020448650 · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-15-s1-p129

The emergence of cohorts of co-active neurons in random recurrent networks provides a mechanism for orientation and direction selectivity

2014· article· en· W2020448650 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dmitry Tsigankov, Matthias Kaschube

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeuroscienceStimulus (psychology)Computer scienceFeed forwardPopulationVisual cortexOrientation (vector space)Nonlinear systemArtificial intelligencePhysicsPsychologyMathematicsCognitive psychologyGeometryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Poster presentation at The Twenty Third Annual Computational Neuroscience Meeting: CNS*2014 Québec City, Canada. 26-31 July 2014: We study random strongly heterogeneous recurrent networks of firing rate neurons, introducing the notion of cohorts: groups of co-active neurons, who compete for firing with one another and whose presence depends sensitively on the structure of the input. The identities of neurons recruited to and dropped from an active cohort changes smoothly with varying input features. We search for network parameter regimes in which the activation of cohorts is robust yet easily switchable by the external input and which exhibit large repertoires of different cohorts. We apply these networks to model the emergence of orientation and direction selectivity in visual cortex. We feed these random networks with a set of harmonic inputs that vary across neurons only in their temporal phase, mimicking the feedforward drive due to a moving grating stimulus. The relationship between the phases that carries the information about the orientation of the stimulus determines which cohort of neurons is activated. As a result the individual neurons acquire non-monotonic orientation tuning curves which are characterized by high orientation and direction selectivity. This mechanism of emergence for direction selectivity differs from the classical motion detector scheme, which is based on the nonlinear summation of the time-shifted inputs. In our model these two mechanisms coexist in the same network, but can be distinguished by their different frequency and contrast dependences. In general, the mechanism we are studying here converts temporal phase sequence into population activity and could therefore be used to extract and represent also various other 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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207