MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050953173 · doi:10.1038/npre.2007.61.1

Reading the Neural Code: What do Spikes Mean for Behavior?

2007· preprint· en· W2050953173 on OpenAlexaff
Dorian Aur, Mandar Jog

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Precedings · 2007
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpike (software development)Computer scienceCode (set theory)Spike trainNeural codingArtificial intelligenceReading (process)Pattern recognition (psychology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present study reveals the existence of an intrinsic spatial code within neuronal spikes that predicts behavior. As rats learnt a T-maze procedural task, simultaneous changes in temporal occurrence of spikes and spike directivity are evidenced in “expert” neurons. While the number of spikes between the tone delivery and the beginning of turn phase reduced with learning, the generated spikes between these two events acquired behavioral meaning that is of highest value for action selection. Spike directivity is thus a hidden feature that reveals the semantics of each spike and in the current experiment, predicts the correct turn that the animal would subsequently make to obtain reward. Semantic representation of behavior can then be revealed as modulations in spike directivity during the time. This predictability of observed behavior based on subtle changes in spike directivity represents an important step towards reading and understanding the underlying neural code.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature PrecedingsSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207