MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041847305 · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-10-s1-p189

Burst firing regulates correlated activity in neurons

2009· article· en· W2041847305 on OpenAlexafffund
Oscar Ávila Åkerberg, Maurice J. Chacron

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neuroscience · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsBurstingNeuroscienceTonic (physiology)Stimulus (psychology)Information transmissionDepolarizationPhysicsCorrelationArtificial neural networkSensory systemComputer scienceStatistical physicsBiologyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceBiophysicsCognitive psychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding how sensory information is encoded by populations of neurons is complicated by the fact that neurons display variability in their responses to repeated presentations of the same stimulus. A further complication comes from the fact that these variabilities can be correlated. In fact, the role of correlations in neural variabilities (noise correlations) has been the focus of much debate in recent years as even a small amount of correlation between a pair of neurons can have dramatic effects on information transmission by neural populations [1]. Recent experimental evidence has shown that burst firing can modulate the amount of noise correlations displayed by neural populations [2]. Here we investigate the role of intrinsic bursting dynamics in model neurons receiving correlated input. These model neurons transition from a tonic firing regime to a bursting regime as the amount of depolarizing current is varied. We find that, given an input correlation c, the output correlation R between neural pairs in the network is less when both neurons are in bursting regime than when they are in the tonic regime. Our theoretical results are supported by experimental results obtained from a slice preparation. We show that intrinsic burst dynamics can decorrelate neural populations and therefore regulate their information transmission properties.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.743

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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