Competition model for aperiodic stochastic resonance in a Fitzhugh-Nagumo model of cardiac sensory neurons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regional cardiac control depends upon feedback of the status of the heart from afferent neurons responding to chemical and mechanical stimuli as transduced by an array of sensory neurites. Emerging experimental evidence shows that neural control in the heart may be partially exerted using subthreshold inputs that are amplified by noisy mechanical fluctuations. This amplification is known as aperiodic stochastic resonance (ASR). Neural control in the noisy, subthreshold regime is difficult to see since there is a near absence of any correlation between input and the output, the latter being the average firing (spiking) rate of the neuron. This lack of correlation is unresolved by traditional energy models of ASR since these models are unsuitable for identifying "cause and effect" between such inputs and outputs. In this paper, the "competition between averages" model is used to determine what portion of a noisy, subthreshold input is responsible, on average, for the output of sensory neurons as represented by the Fitzhugh-Nagumo equations. A physiologically relevant conclusion of this analysis is that a nearly constant amount of input is responsible for a spike, on average, and this amount is approximately independent of the firing rate. Hence, correlation measures are generally reduced as the firing rate is lowered even though neural control under this model is actually unaffected.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".