A Spiking Neural Integrator Model of the Adaptive Control of Action by the Medial Prefrontal Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Subjects performing simple reaction-time tasks can improve reaction times by learning the expected timing of action-imperative stimuli and preparing movements in advance. Success or failure on the previous trial is often an important factor for determining whether a subject will attempt to time the stimulus or wait for it to occur before initiating action. The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) has been implicated in enabling the top-down control of action depending on the outcome of the previous trial. Analysis of spike activity from the rat mPFC suggests that neural integration is a key mechanism for adaptive control in precisely timed tasks. We show through simulation that a spiking neural network consisting of coupled neural integrators captures the neural dynamics of the experimentally recorded mPFC. Errors lead to deviations in the normal dynamics of the system, a process that could enable learning from past mistakes. We expand on this coupled integrator network to construct a spiking neural network that performs a reaction-time task by following either a cue-response or timing strategy, and show that it performs the task with similar reaction times as experimental subjects while maintaining the same spiking dynamics as the experimentally recorded mPFC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".